And so would everyone else here, TIA, but that's simply not the point.

To criticize Obama's performance in office is not tantamount to suggesting that one would prefer to see Billy Graham or Glenn Beck there in his place...

People voted for Obama because he offered them something John McCain couldn't offer them. Because they are now upset with him does NOT indicate that they would now rather have John McCain, and to suggest that it does is to erect a straw man. The election is over! Now we deal with reality.

You cannot defend a politician's errors in office by simply saying..."I'd take him over -------------- (insert name of someone you hate in the blank space). ;-) It doesn't work that way.

We are not forced to choose between Obama and the worst bad dream you can dredge up out of your resentment closet. No one here is saying they wish Obama wasn't president (except those few here who never wanted him elected in the first place), they're just saying that he has come up a bit short and that they are disappointed.

If one cannot say that without being accused of sacrilege or being a traitor to the cause, then I think something is seriously wrong in someone's estimation of what can and cannot be said in political dialogue.

What we have to deal with NOW is Obama. It's no longer a choice between Obama and " a "Christian" macho man who can't read, speak, or perform simple logic, any day of the week"...if it ever was.

So why even bring it up? What has that got to do with anything???