wrote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...c=news letter

And if I may be so bold, I'd suggest asking George Bush and Jimmy Carter, too.
Regardless of politics, both men were faced with some pretty tough issues not of
their own making, and while things might have been handled better, they could
have been much, much worse (and the same is true of Obama - at the end of the
day, things could be a whole ****potful of worse, both objectively and
subjectively). And also at the end of the day, if the US is, in fact, "WE, the
people...," and the whole idea is to reconcile as much as possible so as to lead
to rational debate that then leads to a better US and world, it might be time to
shelve partisan nonsense, at least for a few hours.

Sounds like Brokaw has gone soft in the head. And SHRUB ?!?! Obama
was awarded the prize, in part, for being the anti-Shrub. Why on
earth would he **** on the Norwegians by taking that warmongering
idiot to a Peace Prize ceremony ?

It is often said that the sign of a successful compromise is that no one is
particularly happy, but no one is particularly upset, either. I want Obama to
be "successful" in his "mission of hope and change." IMO, the only way he will
or can be is for as many people as, well, humanly possible to say, "He
succeeded" even if they can't or won't say "I agreed with everything he did."
And that will necessarily include those with differing views to his own and each
others'.

Obama made a reputation in the Illinois Senate as a deal maker
and a compromiser. One of his early campaign ads featured a
GOP state senator who was happy to endorse Obama for precisely
that reason. I can't discern any spirit of compromise whatsoever
in the GOP lawmakers or their civilian nitwit Steele. The GOP
strategy appears to be attack, delay, smear, spread fear and
pray for 2010 to get here real soon now. I don't think it is
humanly possible to compromise with folks who refuse to compromise.

--
Ken Fortenberry