The Lesson Obama Was Sent to Teach Us

The way that people carried on in 2008, you would have thought we had elected a messiah and not merely a president. Some people who felt that way can be excused because that’s the way Obama was sold to us. After all, he vowed to lower the oceans, heal the planet and unite all Americans, whatever their class, race, gender or nation of origin.

That’s pretty big talk for someone whose singular accomplishment as a member of the Illinois legislature was to vote in favor of partial-birth abortions, and whose most noteworthy achievement during his two years in Washington was to be named the most liberal member of the Senate, beating out the unholy likes of Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton and Harry Reid.

Okay, call me a skeptic. However, whenever anyone on TV makes huge, unrealistic promises, my immediate reaction is to withdraw into my shell of cynicism. And I’m merely referring to the sort of slicksters who claim that if I invest $5,000 in gold, I’ll be able to buy and sell Warren Buffet by the end of the month. When a mere politician guarantees that he’s going to lower the oceans my response is to demand he tell me exactly how and why he’s going to get rid of all that water.

I now believe that there was divine intervention in the 2008 election, but not by the candidate from the political sewers of Chicago, but by God, Himself. Somehow, He sensed that too many Americans had forgotten that elections have consequences. The president doesn’t just get to decide if the Thanksgiving Turkey lives or dies, but whether the American economy lives or dies and, even more to the point, whether American citizens live or die.

By allowing Barack Hussein Obama to be elected president and commander-in-chief, He was reminding us poor deluded mortals that when we choose someone because he looks and sounds like someone born to be the D.J. at a hip-hop club, we’re just asking for trouble.

Now, as if all the things Obama’s done and hasn’t done during his time in the White House aren’t bad enough, he announces that the one thing he has learned is that you — or, rather, he — can’t change Washington from the inside. Having said that, I think it’s only fair that we give him every chance to try changing it from the outside. From way outside, be it Chicago, or back in Hawaii, where word has it the Obamas are planning to erect a multi-million dollar home for their retirement. If the rumor is true, those would be the very first shovel-ready jobs for which he could actually claim credit.

Even though the title of my newest book is Barack Obama, You’re Fired! (And Don’t Bother Asking for a Letter of Recommendation), he is merely the worst of the left-wing offenders ruining our lives in Washington. As I make clear in Chapter Two, “Naming Names (Obama’s Cronies, Stooges, Enablers and Fall Guys),” the nation’s capital is fairly bursting at the seams with scoundrels who should be serving sentences, not terms.

A while ago, I wrote to one of them, Senator Dianne Feinstein, complaining about the foot-dragging I perceived taking place when it came to tracking down those who had leaked a slew of national security documents to the New York Times.

After several weeks, I forgot that I had even written to her. Then, one afternoon, I turned on my computer and there was an email from her. To be fair, I will reprint it in its entirety.

Dear Mr. Prelutsky:

Thank you for your letter about my remarks on the recent leaks of sensitive national security information. I appreciate hearing from you, and I welcome the opportunity to respond.

Let me be clear. I do not believe that President Obama has leaked classified information, and I do not know the source of the leaks. On July 23, 2012, I was asked whether the White House might be responsible for recent national security leaks. I stated that I did not believe the president leaked classified information. I should not have speculated beyond that.

I’m on record as being disturbed by these leaks and I know for a fact the president is extremely troubled by these leaks.

In fact, President Obama’s Administration has moved aggressively to investigate the leaks. Attorney General Eric Holder has appointed U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, Ronald C. Machen, Jr., and U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland Rod J. Rosenstein, to head criminal investigations into the leaks. The investigations are under way, and it is moving forward quickly. I hope and expect that they will follow the facts wherever they lead.

Again, thank you for your letter. Please know that I appreciate your taking the time to write. If you have any additional questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact my Washington, D.C. office at(202) 224-3841.

Sincerely yours, Dianne Feinstein, United States Senator.

I wrote back:

Thank you for your response, Senator Feinstein. Frankly, it’s been so long since I wrote, I forgot that I had even brought the matter to your attention. That being said, the investigation is not going ahead quickly. There were only a few people in the room who could have possibly leaked the classified information. You hook those folks up to a lie detector machine and you go from there. Once you find the guilty party, you try him for treason.

As for your contention that the person in question wasn’t Obama, I don’t believe anyone in that room would have risked providing the NY Times with national security data without Obama’s approval. Insisting that he didn’t do it is just plain silly and is, moreover, an insult to my intelligence; the Mafia don doesn’t do his own killing and the president doesn’t pick up the phone and call a Times reporter. In each case, they have it done.

Clearly, this is a case of Party coming before Principle, Party coming before Country.

Again, thanks for finally getting back to me. I know how busy you must be, not getting to the bottom of this scandal.

Sincerely, Burt Prelutsky

Author Bio:

Burt Prelutsky, a very nice person once you get to know him, has been a humor columnist for the L.A. Times and a movie critic for Los Angeles magazine. As a freelancer, he has written for the New York Times, Washington Times, TV Guide, Modern Maturity, Emmy, Holiday, American Film, and Sports Illustrated. For television, he has written for Dragnet, McMillan & Wife, MASH, Mary Tyler Moore, Rhoda, Bob Newhart, Family Ties, Dr. Quinn and Diagnosis Murder. In addition, he has written a batch of terrific TV movies. View Burt’s IMDB profile. Talk about being well-rounded, he plays tennis and poker... and rarely cheats at either. He lives in the San Fernando Valley, where he takes his marching orders from a wife named Yvonne and a dog named Angel.
Author website:
  • brendan horn

    Burt, the lies of Democrats are outrageous. The promises they make are even worse. It looks like Obama’s lies may be rewarded once again as quite a few Americans are proving themselves to be people who love to be lied to. Obama made so many outrageous predictions in his acceptance speech and many idiots bought into the idea that Obama will deliver even though he has failed to deliver most of his previous promises. Obama’s biggest lie for this election is that he is somehow a champion of the middle class. He is really a champion of turning middle class workers into permanent welfare recipients. Another horrible lie of the Dems is that there is somehow a war against women. Where have there been any casualties in this delusional war? It would be fairer for people to argue that the Dems war against the unborn was kicked up a notch in this election with the promise of free contraception for women. This will be a great boon to prostitutes and the very promiscuous. I worry about the future of this country when so many Americans can be fooled or bought so easily.

  • MarioP

    REPLY TO ERNEST 9/26/2012___________________________

    The primary goal of the venture capital firm Bain Capital was to make a profit for the company and their investors. The welfare and success of the target company was secondary and not even necessary for Bain to make a profit. The way the takeover was established was to protect Bain Capital from losing their own minimal investment and make a giant profit, while the victim company got stuck with the enormous debt. There was absolutely no risk for Bain Capital to lose their investment, while all the risk was taken upon by the target company and the bank issuing the loan to Bain. Sure, if Bain managed to turn the ailing company around and flip it for profit would be a nice extra, but even if the company went under, Bain got tens of millions because they were the first to be paid when the company’s finances got dismantled in bankruptcy. Failing to turn a company around, leaving it with hundreds of millions in debt and forcing it into bankruptcy, while the responsible management walks away with tens of millions, is not beneficial to our citizens and our economy. It is a self-indulgent business strategy, benefiting only a few at the expense and suffering of many, including the economy. I thought if you run a company into the ground, you walk away with only your tail between your legs, and not with enough cash to retire like a king. That surely is not the American way, and that’s not an example to be set and followed by the rest of our nation’s businesses. If you believe such shady characters are the right people to run our nation, you my friend don’t know what is necessary to be a successful leader of the entire country. Actually, not only is there no room for such cheats in our government, anyone trying to defend their position in politics has an indefensible argument with no point of being debated.

    I guess based on your argument I have no choice but to agree with you that Obama is a failure, since he promised not to let the unemployment rate exceed 8%, and that was not achieved. For that he is a failure. I’ll disregard the fact that Obama managed to halt the erosion of the economy in an astonishingly brief time frame and that he was able to grow the economy for the last 2.5 years. But he must be a failure because even though he successfully avoided an economic catastrophe and set the path to recovery, he failed to accomplish what he promised. Boy, good thing Obama didn’t promise to lower the unemployment rate to 2%, because even if he managed to lower the rate to 3%, with your logic you would have to call him a failure. Why am I debating with this high school debate team member who holds such elementary arguments?

    • Ernest

      You said Bain takeover (with “minimal investment”) of an ailing company’s success is not necessary to make a profit.  Company gets loan.  Bain draws out it’s own investment plus more extras.  Company goes under.  Bain walks out with millions.  hmm.  i.e.  You buy a company – that makes it your company not somebody else’s.  Get a loan.  Then issue fat checks to yourself to recover your investment and bleeding it dry.  Then let it go bankrupt.   That doesn’t make sense.  Bain is the venture capitalist, an investor, or a partner, or an outright owner of the reincorporated company.  

      Liberals keep on equating Bain Capital equals Romney.  It’s true until 1999.  Accusations of malpractices and failed businesses being blamed by biased media outlets to Bain Capital happened after 1999 and Romney is not even a part of it anymore.  And, I’m not assuming also that all ventures they did prior were successful under Romney.  There will always be winners and losers.  

      Rationalization of mainstream media just propagate misinformation (both left and right) but mostly from left (I only know Fox to be on far right, all the rest are on the left).   The only balanced journalism I’ve seen so far is the Mexican channel, UniVision.  I hope that you will advocate a fair and balanced journalism as well. 

      Obama is a failure from my perspective, as well as by his (Obama’s) own standard because he was not able to live up to his own benchmarks.  Able to grow the economy?   More companies are shutting down than being opened despite of  $700 billion bailout, $800 billion stimulus, $5 trillion additional deficit, 8.1% Unemployment.  Obama’s early promise that he “will be held accountable” for the economy and face a “one-term proposition” if it fails to improve.  We might (?) not even be debating if he stepped down and let Hillary be the standard bearer.

      “Boy, good thing Obama didn’t promise to lower the unemployment rate to 2%, because even if he managed to lower the rate to 3%, with your logic you would have to call him a failure.  Why am I debating with this high school debate team member who holds such elementary arguments?”  –  Of course that’s a failure by his own standard.  You don’t promise anything and make excuses if you didn’t live up to it just to get voter’s confidence.  An elementary can understand that, why can’t you?

      • Mariop

        I don’t know bud, your arguments are just not convincing. 

        Regarding Bain Capital, look into Ampad and how Bain sucked millions from the target company while the company was going deeper and deeper into debt. Bain, as a stake holder in the company, was not responsible to pay off the debt once BK was filed. There is no way you are going to spin this to justify why Bain walked away from the deal with $100M in profits, while they managed the company into bankruptcy. Go ahead and spin it for us if you must.And regarding your bland and shallow way of determining who a failure is, anyone who’ll drive the economy into an impressive 3% unemployment rate has not failed, regardless what he promised. Yet your simplistic achievement guidelines can’t distinguish that. You therefore must call presidents who promised 2% unemployment rate, but one ended with 3% and the other with 20% unemployment, as both being failures. Nice. That makes total sense.

    • brendan horn

      MarioP, you are incapable of understanding what is good for the economy. You are basically a communist. I think your main arguments against Bain are arguments against capitalism. You are self-indulgent. How many jobs have you created? How much money have you made for investors in your business? 

      • MarioP

        Look at you, jumping from one extreme, Bain Capital, to the other, Communism. Actually, there is a comfortable medium somewhere in between. The conservatives are always so polarizing and extreme. That is why they never see the entire picture and come up with wild conclusions. It’s either black or white. Just like a child.

        I have nothing about a private business that creates jobs, creates a product, and is beneficial for our society. Bain Capital did not create jobs, they terminated them. Bain Capital didn’t know anything about how to run a toy retailer, a paper pad manufacturer, or any other type of a company they managed; they only knew how to manipulate and shift funds around. Bain Capital didn’t create value for the target company, they just transferred it from the company into their packets. They preyed on weak companies in tough conditions. Bain Capital had access to funds, but at an extreme cost to the target company. If Bain Capital bought your firm, it’s time to start looking for a new job, because you’ll either lose your job or you’ll get your compensation cut. Except for the management, there is nothing good to come out of being under Bain management. 

        I guess you believe a nation full of Bain Capital businesses is better than legitimate firms like Google. 

        • brendan horn

          Your obsession with Bain capital is unhealthy and your analysis is very wrong. Bain is basically a company that takes over troubled companies and throws out the garbage and keeps what is good. You may think that a person is entitled to a job for life at the moment of hiring but companies cannot survive that way. They need a profit to survive. They are not freeloaders. They need profit. Sometimes jobs need to be eliminated because certain jobs are not profitable to retain. I do not think you have even mentioned a single crime related to Bain. If Bain never committed a crime, they should not be accused of wrongdoing. If you think what they did should be a crime, then you should work with your congressman to change the laws so that these things will not happen in the future.  Or perhaps you could do the same thing as Bain and do it in a way that you think is right. But to me you are just a complainer who does not create jobs yourself and complains about the people who do create jobs. The economy needs banks, insurance companies, investment firms, and many other corporations that do not create a tangible product. I believe Bain has done more good for the economy than you or the ideas that you espouse ever could. 

          • MarioP

            I don’t complain about businesses that create jobs. I’m complaining about Bain Capital, a firm that does not create jobs, it slashes them. Bail Capital lays off people and cuts workers’ compensation, because the money the company used to pay those workers is now being spent on the new management. The new Bain management doesn’t even know how to run a specific company. They don’t know how to turn a toy retailer into a competitive one. The management of the toy retailer had way more experience how to run the company than Bain does. The only reason Bain was brought on board was because the management of the target company got an immediate payoff so the managers don’t have to wait years for such a compensation. The target company was better off without Bain getting involved. I understand that some worker positions may need to be terminated, but why is Bain capital hanging around for years after the restructuring takes place? Bain is obviously sucking “management fees” out of the target company after they claim a majority stake in the firm. 

            Also, just because Bain did nothing illegal, it doesn’t mean no wrongdoing was done. Nearly every law we have on books is preventing some wrong activity, an activity that once was legal. Pyramid schemes were at one point legal, so were they not wrong before they became illegal? Anyone abusing the system legally will force the government to pass new regulations, causing our nation to become less free. 

            Romney’s Bain capital actions will still come to hunt him before the elections are over. The Left will concentrate on Romney’s abuses of the system for his own benefit, rather than looking out for the workers and the economy as well. The Left has only scratched the surface with Romney’s shady business pass.

            Oh, and thank you for the advice that I should do the same business activities as Bain. Yeah, I have millions just sitting around and have connections to twisted bankers who would approve any questionable loan so I can invest them on troubled companies. You are just out of touch with the nation just like Romney when he was asked about advice on how to become successful. If you’ve not heard how he answered the question, he advised to borrow money from your parents to start a business. Wow! Why didn’t I think of that?!

  • cmacrider

    Burt:  When Obama admitted that he couldn’t change Washington from within, I thought this admission was one of his rare moments when he actually made contact with Truth.  To effect change in Washington he would have to say and mean things which resonate with people like Paul Ryan, McConnell etc. and most sophomores struggling to maintain a C average can’t do that.  

    • BurtPrelutsky

      cma: I suspect that when Obama made contact with the truth, it had the same effect on him that touching a hot stove has on a toddler…and now that he’s learned his lesson, he won’t try it again.


      • GlenFS

        Burt, I agree on the effect, but believe he can’t help but leak bits of the truth despite of himself because he is a true believer and arrogant enough to think he’s smarter than the rest of us.  I look forward to the next glimpse into his rotten core.

        • MarioP

          I’m not sure what all that complaining about Obama’s intelligence and arrogance is about. Without a doubt, Obama is more intelligent than Bush2 is, but you had no problem with W’s lack of intellect. And Bush2 was also more cocky than Obama. Bush even started a war because he thought he knew more than the nation, the UN,  and the world did. He was going to do his thing even if the world didn’t approve of it. Therefore, your complaint about Obama is totally baseless and only comes from your emotions. Get over it, and stop crying.

          • GlenFS

            If you feel you must reply to my post at least make a relevant point:  1) Bush was not mentioned 2) war was not mentioned 3) the UN was not a topic 4) no “complaint” was made of any sort.

            Better yet, just leave it alone and go away.

          • BurtPrelutsky

            There you go again, Glen, using logic and truth.  Aren’t you ashamed of yourself?


          • MarioP

            My relevant point was that you’re complaining about a competent president and not about the least popular president of nearly a century. It doesn’t matter what was and was not mentioned in the original post. I’m bringing in material to aid that relevant point, a point which relates to your post.

  • Deny916

    “I once was lost, but now I’m found
    Was blind but now I see”

    Hopefully we’ll all be able to see in November!  Thanks for the excellent story Burt!

    • BurtPrelutsky

      Thank you, Deny.  Did you notice that Dopey–or is it Sneezy?–now expects me to defend Rush.  I wonder if he writes to Rush, expecting him to defend me.


      • Deny916

        You can’t win for losing can you, Burt????  Dopey is well Dopey…can’t say much more than that!

        • Alden514

          Here are a few “loons” who ARE on “his team”…thought you’d enjoy:

          • Mariop

            Nice. Is that the best you can do? I can post similar links showing some challenged hicks supporting the GOP. 

            But how do you justify that the most popular Right wing talkshow host lacks logic in his arguments, often contradicting himself within a few hours? What does it tell you about the herd that listens to him and believes in those lies? Loon herding the loons.

          • Wheels55

            It is difficult for me to support Rush or anyone given several hours a day to talk opinion. I bet if Rush had 15 minutes a day, he would make every statement to the point and not waste air time on crazy thought. In that ratings game, you have to be over the top to be on the air everyday for hours at a time.
            Besides, Rush certainly isn’t talking to liberal kool-aid drinkers. So, MarioP, what is your favorite flavor these days? Fruit Punch?

          • Mariop

            Wheels, of course Rush isn’t talking to liberals, since none of them would believe what he yaps about. But many of the gullible and uninformed conservatives, who can’t develop a simple counterargument, eat it all up.

            At least you agree that Rush’s hours of airtime are filled with crazy opinions. Others accept all that fantasy as factual.  

          • Deny916

            OMG!!!!!  I listened to all 7:29 of that.  I can’t believe there are that many stupid people in this world and should definitely NOT be allowed to vote!

            HOW could none of those people NOT know Bin Laden was dead?????

            The loons are in full swing!  Holy!  Thanks for posting that Alden!

          • Mariop

            I completely agree. Voting should be a privilege reserved for the intelligent.

            Look at these informed voters:



            Hey, I’ve heard many of these opinions on this website. Wow!

      • MarioP

        Burt, I’m just showing you how illogical Rush is on his show. I don’t expect you to defend him, because he is indefensible. Glad that loon isn’t on my team, embarrassing my half of the nation.

  • Soubellvoter

    Go get em, Burt. This is just more proof of the hypocrisy and lies that abound in this administration. Guess we can all count out all that ‘TRANSPARENCY’ Obama ran on to get elected. It’s quite noticeable it’s not being touted this time around!!!!

  • Mariop


    Rush just said that the 72 virgins waiting for the Islamic gays will be no good for them. So is Rush saying that gays can not be converted to become straight, like Bachmann believes?

  • Wheels55

    So, when will the undecided voters see that we elected a leader in 2008 that makes excuses and hides the truth. Executive privilege to hide Holder’s and Obama’s guilt, leaks from his administration and it’s Ok as long as Obama did not know, Libya just exploded because of a dumb video, etc. Can so many people be grocery store tabloid readers?

    • BurtPrelutsky

       They can, Wheels.  To keep up with them, you need only read Mariop’s comments.
      He thinks people who read my articles are wackos, but he has become my most faithful follower.


      • Mariop

        Burt, I must admit, you are a talented writer. Not just anyone can claim that they’ve written shows and movies. There is a reason why your resume is so rich. I’m not pulling your leg or being facetious; I’m being serious.

        But your extreme and uninformed political views can not be taken seriously, especially when your statements can so easily be debunked with little effort. You’re very upset with the liberals, yet it’s the conservatives you should be angry with for their incompetence and constant mistakes. If it wasn’t for the liberals, our nation would be a complete mess. This Romney character, how many gaffes is he going to make? Every week there is a new blunder. How fun and entertaining!

        • BurtPrelutsky

          I don’t plan to make a habit of replying to you.  I just want you to know that I find your persistence very peculiar.  I am not trying to convince you that I’m right.  Clearly, we view things from the opposite ends of the political spectrum.  But what I don’t get is, one, why you keep reading my stuff when you find my articles riddled with lies, and, two, why you persist in leaving comments when it’s so obvious that everyone who reads them regards you as a left-wing loon and a pest.


          • Mariop

            Burt, I find your blogs entertaining, just like when someone is telling you an unbelievable story, you just can’t walk away not hearing the ending. Well, I can’t believe people actually think the way you do, and all the respondents as well. I can’t believe some of the wild conclusions you come up with. They’re just completely unbelievable. You and I do view things with different eyes, but your views are undeniably false, as I have shown you many times. I will keep reading your blogs and will reply, even if you don’t reply back. And I don’t think everyone who reads my posts regards me as a left-wing loon once the logic of the truth finally kicks in. 

          • Deny916

            Well I sure do regard you as a left wing loon!  I think you’d be much better posting on CNN where the other left wing loons would really enjoy your wild ravings!  We’ve got REAL stuff to talk about here!

            Sorry Burt.  I couldn’t resist, but I won’t do it again!

          • Mariop

            Deny, why would I want to be posting on CNN? I don’t need encouragement and assurance for my postings like the typical posters on here. What’s the point of telling the truth to the ones who already know it? It’s the ones who live an illusion that need to be constantly informed, as they can’t independently comprehend the reality. I provide the lost with guidance, for a better America. Although their stubborn mentality will not allow them to admit to others they were wrong, personally they’ll come around and will see the truth.

        • Ernest

          You are definitely a left-wing looney, why even hide it?  Maybe you are the among those who live a convenient life and wouldn’t care about the struggles of the working class and your livelihood is not threaten by the condition of our economy. 

          Obama is failure.  Go back to his campaign promises, which ones have come true?  It’s a shame that he would brag about having created 4 million jobs but discounting the 4 million jobs that were lost.  Half truth or half lie ?  It was a convenient excuse to blame Bush and the Republicans.  Democrats hold the house and senate on Obama’s first 2 years and yet he was not able to do what he promised.  I was mesmerized too by Obama’s Hope and Change campaign slogan in 2008.  But the first 2 years already highlighted his presidency.  

          Romney is not a perfect person for the Presidency but he’s the best choice to uphold America on this election.

          • Mariop

            Ernest,I’m more in the middle than you know. I don’t stand with the Democrats on 100% of the issues. I’m an informed realist. You, apparently, have not been paying attention to the changes our nation experienced over the last four years. Maybe you do not understand the definition of change, or maybe your expectations were completely unrealistic.When Obama took office, the nation was losing jobs and the unemployment rate was jumping up by as much as half a percentage point every month. What miracle were you expecting that would have turned the economy overnight? Obama took only nine months to stop the horrific bleeding, and since then our economy has been growing. If today we were still losing jobs and be in a depression, then that would be the no-change you’re claiming we got. Even the realistic Republicans believe that McCain would not have repaired the economy by now. If we were back in the 1930’s, four years after that Republican economic disaster, our economy would still be crashing, hence no change.How about ending the war in Iraq. Isn’t that a change? But I guess you purged that embarrassing nightmare from your mind already.Obamacare is a change. Even though 99% of the nation benefits from that program, the top 1% who can afford a nice Cadillac healthcare managed to misinform the confused voters that no one would benefit from Obamacare but the very poor. Do you know that everyone is now entitled for free preventative care? Yeah, for free you get to identify medical problems early on to avoid paying for expensive recoveries, which raise healthcare costs for everyone. You don’t have to worry about having your medical coverage dropped when the bills get too large for your insurance. You don’t have to worry about losing your house to pay for your healthcare. You don’t have to worry that your newborn child with pre-existing conditions will not be covered. You don’t have to worry when you develop a medical condition and you chose to change jobs, that the new insurance will not cover you. You don’t have to worry when your young adult child wants to extend his college education or change his major, because he’ll be still covered under the parents’ plan. Now the uninsured who used to show up at the costly emergency rooms and who never paid for their treatments, are covered. Before you panic, note that the government was paying for those expensive emergency room visits back then with tax money allocated for other programs. We were paying for it back then already.I can go on and on about the changes, but I’ll let you do some of your own research.Oh and Romney, did you even read about his Bain Capital accomplishments and his Cayman Islands accounts? If you think he is the best bet for our nation, you must have a lot of tolerance for system abusers and cheats, let alone for flipflopping. 

        • Ernest

          I appreciate that left-leaning guy like you have a more rational approach towards this election.  (Unlike, pinhead bloggers, lefts and rights, from other mainstream media outlets).   

          Re your comment – I have been paying close attention on the changes.  I throw it back to you – you do not understand what Obama’s campaign about CHANGE.  While I agree, as well, that there are positive results from his presidency but overall, we’re not better than the standards  that he himself set (particularly on economy, unemployment, immigration and housing which are my top priorities).  That is why I define him a failure.  

          Job rate.  True that he was able to improve unemployment down to 8.1%.  Of course thats good but not good enough.  Note however that many Americans have simply given up looking for work.  Fewer people looked for work, therefore no longer count as unemployed.   In short, job creation has not recovered since the recession began.  Obama said unemployment would never climb above 8 percent if Congress allow $800 billion on government spending that can stimulate an economy.  Did not happen.

          My expections are the ones set forth by Obama.  Unrealistic?  Perhaps.  But who’s unrealistic?  And what miracle are you expecting?  You already seen how our country been ran and expect it will turn for good on the next 4 years.  Possible.  By the way, I did not say Republican McCain could have made it better –  I was for Obama in 2008. (Comment like this just shows you as a die-hard liberal.  It’s Obama and Romney were discussing here). 

          Obamacare.  There are merits to it but not enough justification to have it funded by Medicare.  It’s good that it will give substancial savings for low-income Americans and outlaws insurance companies from rejecting patients with pre-existing conditions.  But it’s just another insurance scheme.  Why do you think AARP lobbied?  Just another preferencial company the liberals cannot reject?  All it does is require all Americans to purchase private health insurance coverage, and consequently prohibits private insurers from barring someone from purchasing said coverage.  Why not just form a comprehensive insurance plans within the Medicare program itself.  How would $716 Billion taken out of Medicare be good for Medicare beneficiaries.  Go figure.

          Romney’s Cayman account – that doesn’t follow that he did something illegal.  Cayman although known as a tax haven is also an attractive venue to create partnership with internations investors.  I guess you already discounted that and your one-track mind is programmed already to only accept what you like to believe.  Why can’t Democrats demonize George Soros who gave up his shares of US companies have the majority of his wealth stashed in Cayman and other parts of the world – oh, he’s the big boss of the democratic party, sorry.  He’s funding huge amount to the Democratic Party at the same time he’s off-loading his stocks, looks like we’re in serious trouble if Obama have his second term.  Soros want Obama to win and yet bet against America.  

          I still believe Romney is not a perfect person for the Presidency but he’s the best choice to uphold America on this election.  

          • MarioP

            I don’t understand Obama’s change? Yet I listed several changes, for the better, he has done. Huh?

            Economic Recovery: Obama, and everyone else, underestimated the the severity of the economic meltdown. Hence his economists were not well prepared when he took office. But that is completely irrelevant, because had Republican policies been applied to the disaster, we would have been worse off today. I would rather take the not-as-good-as-promised outcome than a worse one. Had the Republican economic policies been more effective to deal with the recession than the Democratic ones, your complaint would be valid. But since your solution is worse, why even complain about the better solution, even if it’s not as good as you hoped for. You’re complaining about the Toyota you were given instead of the Mercedes you were promised, although you wished for a Yugo. I guess you would have been better of pushing your lemon.

            Unemployment Rate (UR): Today the U3 UR is 8.1%, about 20% lower than at the peak of 10.0% nearly three years ago. The UR started dropping about thirteen months after the economic meltdown occurred, and only about nine months after Obama took office. To help us realize how truly short that time frame is, let us put it in perspective  The only greater economic disaster than Bush2’s recession, the Great Depression, took five years for the UR to start dropping. Five years! Reagan’s recession, which he worsened with his first federal budget starting in October 1981, took 15 months for the UR to start dropping. Although the UR during that recession peaked at 10.8% in December of 1982, that recession wasn’t as devastating as the current one. Also, you are at least partially excusing the drop in the U3 UR as due to people giving up on searching for jobs. OK, then why don’t we look at the U4 UR, which accounts for people who have given up looking. That rate has also been dropping since fall of 2009, especially since November of 2010. Hence, even when accounting for the discouraged workers, the U4 UR has dropped about 20% from its 2009 peak.

            Obamacare: All I have to say is that the vast majority of the nation benefits with that program, not only low income families and people with pre-existing conditions. I already listed a lengthy list of those benefits, and I’m not going to repeat myself.

            Romney: Romney has an extremely shady business past, and it is only realistic to conclude that his intentions with the Cayman Islands accounts were for tax evasion. Of course there may be other benefits for keeping your funds in the Caribbean, but I doubt Romney paid the US required taxes on those profits. Had Romney paid the same US tax rate on his profits even if he kept his funds abroad, your argument would be valid. Did you read about Bain Capital, and how Romney terminated more US jobs than he has created? Or how he borrowed heavily leveraged funds to buy a stake in a company, only to cash his share out and force the company into bankruptcy? Very shady!

            You think Romney will do a good job with the nation? He has no experience with job creation. Romney will indebt the nation, lose jobs, and walk away with his winnings. 

          • Ernest

            Change  . . . I enumerated economy, unemployment, immigration and housing.

            Your word –  “His (Obama) economist were not well prepared?”,  Results were “Not good as promised”.   That’s a failure.  

            I know Obama will try very hard to make things work if he gets a second term.  It’s useless to make comparison with previous republicans and a possibility if McCain won.  It would have been so much better if Hillary took the spot.  But again that’s hindsite (we’ll be going back to the blame game if we touch that).  

            “Romney have a shady business past”.  You need to analyze first the business process.  If that’s your logic, what good will Obama’s socialist ideals will lead us to?  

            Bain Capital was started as a private equity firm with Romney as CEO in 1983 (until 1999).  Fund increased from $37 million to $500 million by 1994.  You have to understand that private-equity firm manage funds provided by investors to purchase ailing companies, improve them then resell for profit.  In the process of restructuring the business, slashing jobs maybe a necessary evil to make the company profitable.  Private-equity firms are loyal to their investor’s interests, even if that means slashing jobs and wages for workers.  Wouldn’t that be better than letting go of the ailing company altogether?

            Outsourcing is a touchy issue since US already have an Open Trade Agreement with China and China being member of WTO.  It’s not a level playing field since the 90’s.  I’ve seen too many manufacturing shifted to China, Mexico and elsewhere.  I have members of my own family and friends victims of outsourcing.  Clinton, Bush and Obama failed to control it.  Hypothetical question.  Will you buy a US made product for a much higher price than China made product for the same features and quality?  Some will say yes just for the sake of argument.  Generally, no. That’s how we end up having our own US brands that are made in China.  How can you compete with dirt cheap labor.  Unless regulations are set in place (maybe reimpose high tariff duties to discourage imports, including US brand made outside of US).  And how crazy was it when our USA Olympic team had China-made clothing.  It’s just the way business works as America.  Problem is our government that allowed it to.  It’s way more complicated than it seems.  

            Romney will do a good job in saving our economy in a 4-year term.

          • MarioP


            Please see my reply above. Search for

            REPLY TO ERNEST 9/26/2012

  • Mariop

    Feinstein, like many of Burt’s readers, have chalked up Burt onto their wacko list. Why would Obama release such sensitive national security information, revealing that we have a double agent in Al Qaeda and there is a secret kill list? Wouldn’t that be counterproductive if Obama released it? I mean who wants to be viewed as a failure on the war against terror? Everyone knows how the last president looked when he couldn’t smoke out the #1. It makes way more sense that the leaks are coming from someone who isn’t very happy with Obama in the office and is trying to prevent him from accomplishing more successful missions. Burt, something isn’t firing right up there. Maybe it’s time to hang it up.

  • Bruce A.

    Nice one Burt.  I hope you are not expecting a coherent response from Sen. Feinstein.

    • BurtPrelutsky

       Bruce: I’m not holding my breath, but, then, I had given up hope of hearing from her in the first place.  She might send me one of those form letters in which politicians pretend they were happy to hear from a constituent.