My, my, I seem to have touched a nerve. And here I thought my post was so temperate, while your answer was so full of vitriol. So let's calm down, shall we? Despite the fact that Obama, Axelrod, et al have gone out of their way to praise Bush’s class and cooperation throughout then transition, I won't get into an argument with you over whether or not Bush has class. Let's just agree that class -- like beauty -- is often in the eye of the beholder.

I WILL respond to your other points, however. But not with "Republican" talking points or anger. Just with facts.

You say that The Bush administration DID single out broadcasters, most famously Bill Maher, with the statement -- "People should watch what they say." But it was not Bush himself who made that statement. It was Ari Ari Fleischer. However, it WAS Obama himself who said, "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done." Big difference. Futhermore, after Ari made that statement, he DIDN'T go back to the White House and hatch a strategy against Bill Mayer. But the Obama White House DID do just that against Rush Limbaugh. According to Politico:

"Top Democrats believe they have struck political gold by depicting Rush Limbaugh as the new face of the Republican Party, a full-scale effort first hatched by some of the most familiar names in politics and now being guided in part from inside the White House."

You can read the entire article at: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19596.html

As for your statement that the stock market has lost half its value because Republican deregulation policies created gaping holes in the regulatory system that allowed financial company liabilities to grow to 1.4 quadrillion dollars -- well, I'm sorry, Mr. Thompson, but that's just plain wrong. I'm afraid it's far more complicatedt. But if you'll bear with me, I'll be happy to lay out a history of the facts for you:

The economic conditions today are the result of well-intentioned pressure that began under the Carter administration’s “Community Reinvestment Act.” This Act was meant to persuade Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac lower their mortgage qualifications to include lower income people, who really did not have wherewithal to make good on the loans. This pressure was intensified under by the Clinton administration. But Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac did much more than just lower their qualification levels. They took advantage of people. Not just low income people. All kinds of people. Then they sold off these bad loans, which were often falsely rated AAA, to banks that are now failing as a result. And when the house of cards began to fall, FM & FM cooked their books.

Former Clinton administration budget adviser Franklin Raines was the CEO of Fannie Mae from 1998 to 2004. During this period, he perpetrated an Enron-like accounting scandal, resulting in his receiving millions in compensation. As a result, he and two other top Fannie Mae executives agreed to pay $24.7 million, including a $2 million fine, to settle a civil lawsuit filed in December 2006. It accused Raines and the two other executives of manipulating Fannie Mae earnings, allowing executives to pocket hundreds of millions in bonuses.

The Securities and Exchange Commission's top account accused Fannie Mae under Raines' leadership of misstating earnings for three and a half years, leading to an estimated $9 billion earnings restatement that wiped out 40 percent of Fannie Mae's profits from 2001-2004, according to Business Week.

As recently as July 17, the Washington Post ran a profile piece on Raines claiming he "has been quietly constructing a new life for himself," in which Raines takes "calls from Barack Obama's presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters."

But there’s more.

Democrat Barney Frank is the Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, which oversees government-sponsored entities like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He was a staunch defender of Fannie Mae even as other experts suggested there were serious problems building in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In fact, he stood in firm opposition to George Bush and many other Republicans who sought to impose the kind of regulations that may have made it impossible for us to be in the economic situation we are in today.

According to the Washington Post, Frank opposed giving the Bush administration the right to approve or disapprove business activities that “could pose risk to the taxpayers.” Frank also told the Post he worried the Treasury Department “would sacrifice activities that are good for consumers in the name of lowering the companies’ market risks.”

Just a month before, Frank had aggressively thwarted reform efforts by the Bush administration. He told The New York Times on Sept. 11, 2003, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s problems were “exaggerated,” a gross miscalculation some five years later with costs estimated to be in the hundreds of billions.

“These two entities –- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac –- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” Frank said to the Times. “The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

And good old Barney is still at it. Just yesterday he was on Capital Hill, trying to get an amendment adopted that would make those who actually lied on their mortgage applications eligible for bail out money.

Anyway, this is how the sorry economy we have today came to be. And while the Stock Market is now down 3,000 points since election day... while millions watch half their savings evaporate... while seniors watch their life savings vanish... Obama has the audacity to tell us yesterday, "I don’t pay attention to the stock market."

Wow, that kind of rhetoric is bound to bolster market confidence.

Hope this clarifies my statements of yesterday. As for your barb that I'm "clearly oblivious to any sort of reality" -- trust me, my world is truly reality-based.

Have a great weekend:)