Saucy

Granted what is "needed" is a matter of opinion and difference between ideals of Conservatives and Liberals, but I am curious. What if Obama manages to make the US a safer country with a better smarter military, stronger financial position, greener, more educated, better prepared to face the future, and most importantly with a stronger moral standing in the world that allows us to effectively apply soft and hard power while increasing and strengthing our allies.

What response and/or idea would republicans and hardcore conservatives alike put forth?

Personally if the press invaded my daughters recital and started asking me questions about work i would brush them off as well. I just do not see a reason for that kind of intrusive nature just to figure out something and then claim he was uncooperative because of the response. He may be Chief of Staff to be but that is no excuse to bother the man while he is trying to watch his daughter. How can this be considered acceptable but he refusal talk to them isnt?

I read an article today that plainly said Republicans are criticizing Obama for the way he has handled this issue. Personally I find this troubling as it really has no basis. Things typically follow a measure of succession. And he, as his past during the campaign has shown, as always taken specific steps at those times.

First day it happened he made a small statement. Second day after gathering certain immediate facts he again issued a statement and press conference. Next day he had yet another conference but also addressed the internal investigation on the entire issue. And yet this is not enough? There is no "openness" of his position?

I can understand that people want answers from him but wouldn't it be prudent on his behalf to get facts first before running off at the mouth about things so there can be no question of it? I mean corruption is bad enough but ignorance is even worse.

Its time to be blunt. We have an impossible amount of debt. We have over consumption, under saving. We have educational issues and endless concerns over immigration. We have a lack of confidence in our leaders and disappearing confidence from the rest of the world. And to top it all off, many of us still enjoy remaining as ignorant and unaware of the country and the global world at large.

So my question is why is it many of us as Americans are so content with believing that we are going to somehow always be the cats pajamas without realizing that the number of issues and problems we have stem from that very belief?

Followup - What would the United States really need to do in order alter the current course of internal decline?

I appreciate insightful comments.

I cannot speak for other places but in this country it seems as though we have been accustomed to condemning our differences rather than celebrating them. Gay or non gay, white or black, skinny or fat, smart or not as smart. We pursue levels of comedy in regards to all of these which can be funny at times but comedy can be a form of celebration. However in real public life, it seems we condemn each other more for our differences from another person. Is this a good thing? How can we alter our perspective on this issue? Is it even possible to have a society where we do not condemn our differences? Maybe if we were all the same? Thoughts please.

Please no nonsense. Its just an honest question for honest answers. Thank you.

We always hear someone talking about being an American. But what does it mean to be an American? Please other people from other countries respond as well.

I happened to stroll across CNN and saw numerous amounts of posts claiming Obama was not for "change" just because he is sending his kids to private school. I mean obviously there are many things to consider like protection but are these people really serious about this or is it some kind of venting because he won? I mean I find it almost laughable if it wasn't so sad that this is something truly worthy enough to complain about. Are we really this petty as a country?

First he was blamed for high gas prices, then the economy going down the drain (as if he cut all those jobs), no not representing change by electing a few intelligent Clinton people and sending his kids to private school. Next he will be blamed for global warming whats next? Thoughts?

The people who currently cannot pay their bills either because of a lost job or because of short sighted actions that got them into houses they could not pay for, why not the auto industry? Personally I am for anything with some serious strings but for years the home values have been artificially high and people were in homes that they actually could not pay for. So why is it more acceptable to pass a bill for them?

There are many posters on Y! that post racist things. Many of which rant and rant about it constantly making new account after new account doing the same thing. It is no different than say Xbox live and how people talk real tough through the internet. But my question is how many of these people would actually say this to the person they are directing it to? How many would actually call an african american the n word to their face or a lesbian another term to theirs?

Just how many internet thugs do we have our there that are simply timid in person? Thoughts?

I hear alot that the Republican party needs to get back to the basic ideas that made the party strong in the beginning. The main point is about smaller government. But my question is that they always say smaller government but how does that equal to better government? Personally I am not worried about a larger government or a smaller government just as long as that government is run efficiently and smart. So even if they are bigger, does that mean they are bad? Thoughts please.

I am all for globalization. I believe competition is a way to bring all great things for consumers. I am all for working together effectively with other countries like China to provide many things to many different markets across the world. But in a period when our economy needs a significant boost of some kind to spur everything from innovation to research and technology, why would an acceptable loss of our auto industry be ok? It is understandable that they put themselves in this position through short sighted management and that is something they should pay for but not at the expense of one of the strongest and few remaining industries that yield powerful aspects to the rest of the world.

I could careless about the management, I care about the industry as a whole. Ceding such a powerful industry to foreign competitors would put us in the same position as we are now with oil. And we would again have to depend and be exposed to outside forces that could control how much we pay for cars and access to the kinds of cars we want.

So my question again is can we allow such a huge oversight in letting our auto industry fail even while we protest our freedom from foreign oil?

I am confused as to why people believe it will be the Clinton administration all over again when it is far from being that. First Obama is simply not Clinton. Secondly, it is quite difficult I am sure to find people who would be qualified for some of the toughest positions in this country that did not work for the Bush or Clinton administration. They have been readily in office for the past 20 years or so. I am not saying its impossible but I do say that it is smart to find and tap the talent that you hope and expect great things from. Is this wrong? Thoughts?

Let us understand something clearly. We all know how connected the three automakers are to the manufacturing industry of this country. They are so integrated that a fall of even one could effect millions of people's jobs. On top of that, any failure could result in other companies including Toyota free reign in a market that is not even their home turf.

So aside from all the political nonsense and how they have edged on their entire troubles now by acting stupid in producing ignorant cars, can the US really want the American auto industry to be ceded to Toyota and other car makers just because we are too arrogant to bypass their importance?

Personally I would rather not help them at all but looking at the risks of not and what the aftermath could be, I think it would be highly encouragable for the world biggest economy not to have its own viable auto industry. So I say give them the help the need but restrict what they can do with the money, what it goes towards, and an observer to hold the strings tightly over each company to ensure its use. I say if we have any chance of fixing our economy, the American people need to endorse the bailout and take back our auto industry from arrogant ignorant CEOs. Thoughts?

I was reading a few articles on the state of the current republican party and it seems like to me just from the general feeling; that they might even be a party more divided in the future. The reason is because of the different divisions within the party structure. There are a few factors I think could highly influence the next election. The main is if Obama does an amazing job, which I think he will. It would be hard for republicans to convince the country that because he did such a great job for four years, he could not do it again. Second issue is the division of the Palin supporters and everyone else. She has a large following but not everyone in the party agrees with her in the slightest and most do not feel she should even be placed anywhere near the top spot on the presidential ticket. It is safe to say that she will never want to run second fiddle to anyone again after this election. She would want to be number one.

So how do the social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, and evangelical republicans manage to come together enough to not only win the majority vote but cater to more than just the racial majority in this country?

What I mean is are we a world country? We have the most diverse mix of people anywhere else on the planet. Are we the first real truly world country? Which country would eventually become the next world country?

Friedman: I have no doubt about it, which is why I say in the book: I'm not against Kyoto; if you can get 190 countries all to agree on verifiable limits on their carbon, God bless you. But at the end of the day, I really still believe--and I know you do too--in America as a model. Your book stresses this--that even in a post-American world we still are looked at by others around the world as a role model. I firmly believe that if we go green--if we prove that we can become healthy, secure, respected, entrepreneurial, richer and more innovative by greening our economy, many more people will follow us voluntarily than would do so by compulsion of a treaty. Does that mean Russia and Iran will? No. Geopolitics won't disappear. But I think it will, speaking broadly, definitely reposition us in the world with more people in more places. I look at making America the greenest country in the world like running the Olympic triathlon: if you make it to the Olympics and you run the race, maybe you win--but even if you don't win, you're fitter, healthier, more secure, more respected, more competitive and entrepreneurial, because you have given birth to a whole new clean power industry--which has to be the next great global industry--and put your economy on a much more sustainable footing. So to me, this is a win-win-win-win race, and that's why I believe we, America, need to take the lead in it. In the Cold War we had the space race with Russia to see who could be the first to put a man on the moon. Today we need an earth race with Japan, Europe, China and India--to see who can be the first to invent the clean power technologies that will allow man to live safely and sustainably on earth.

CNN: So what you would recommend to the Republican Party?

Zakaria: They need to realize the world is changing and the old rules don't apply. They need to be innovative as Ronald Reagan was in 1980. Shouting "USA is No. 1" is cheap rhetoric, divorced from the real world. The real challenge for Washington is not to boast about America's might but to use its capabilities -- military, political, intellectual -- to work with others to create a more stable, peaceful and prosperous world in which American interests and ideals will be secure.

Personally my reaction to this is that is makes complete sense. The world has changed and we already know we are a super power but how we use the super power is truly a test to how great we are. If we lack the understanding of our own power, we will never be able to harness and use that power to get the important things wordly accomplished like it should. We must be more than just a leader of the free world, we must be leaders for ourselves.

-Zen

I propose to let the automakers fail but to an extent. I would put a congressional chairperson to oversee every action each car company does with the new bailout money. And impose strict guidelines in terms of emissions like California on the new vehicles made.

--OR--

Let the automakers fail and instead inject money directly into all the other smaller car companies that are much more focused on fuel efficient cars like Telsa and a few others. This would create a new auto market where instead of a few companies owning the industry, there would be dozens which could possibly spur more manufacturing jobs and more competition in the long haul. The big 3 would still exist but would be restructed most likely under bankruptcy claims.

Thoughts? Suggestions? What you think?

Personally although I respect and practice religion, in no way should religion be a part of politics in the slightest. I am a firm believer in the idea and respect of separation of church and state. In the article posted below, someone from the church decided it was his right to deny Obama supporters communion if they voted for Obama. Do you believe this is his right and he is justified in doing this? Or do you believe that his actions should not deny people participation in the church because of his different political views? Are we really a society so divided that a social issue would prevent someone from choosing progress over possible disaster?

Note: Please do not speak about disater in terms of Obama and McCain. I am simply speaking about politics and its place in the church.

I voted for Obama/Biden. The election however is over now and that is old news. Now we have a duty to focus as a country to handle issues that need to be taken care of. But exactly why does it seem like Palin insists on going after Obama? He has not even taken office yet and she has issues with him. She has talked a great deal about how she wants to support the future president with any support he needs but then goes right around and refers to concern about how he will lead. Why is there concern just because it would be a different way than how she would lead? I fail greatly to see the reason for the continued backlask against Obama. What are your thoughts?