I see a lot of comments here about how Alaska is financially dependent on the federal government, and is some sort of welfare state. Let them secede, say some, and they'll beg to come back. Such remarks seem to be based on numbers comparing the taxes paid by Alaska to Washington versus the federal spending received by the state.

But in reality, this number is only part of the real story. If the federal share of the Alaskan oil and gas royalties are included, the federal government gets far more money from Alaska then vice versa. And the federal government wouldn't be getting any of that money if people weren't working in Alaska and living a type of lifestyle far different than your own.

Keep in mind Alaska also has large additional reserves (ANWR) it would likely exploit if not stopped by the federal government. Plus, if independent, Alaska would be entitled to most of the offshore drilling royalties now claimed by the federal treasury. So Alaskans would almost assuredly be far better off economically as an independent country (sort of another Norway).

Just something to keep in mind before making pretentious comments and putting Alaska down, just because you don't understand their different lifestyle, and don't like their governor.

When I was working in Russia during the Yeltsin administration, a Russian partner made the following comparison between Russian and US attitudes. He said that when an American sees someone with more wealth than himself (bigger house, more or better cars, etc.) he repects that person more, and tries to discover how he accomplished it so he can do it himself. But when a Russian sees someone wealthier, he automatically assumes its unfair and spends his time instead trying to take that wealth away from him.

Certainly our economic system here in the US got a bit out of whack. But let's not adopt the latter attitude, that all successful and therefore wealthy people are undeserving or criminals. If we do, it will remove most incentive for people to better themselves, and will lead to even worse trouble in the future.

As the only other real option in a two party system, if the economy doesn't turn around on Obama's watch, the GOP will revive as the "anti-Obama" party. Just like the Democrats were the "anti-Bush" party this past election. Hillary Clinton (or any credible Democrat) would have won, too, if she'd been the nominee.

Don't kid yourself that most voters are rationally following the "tax cuts versus spending" or "big government versus small government" arguments so many political junkies here live and die with. Most voters don't really follow such things in detail; they instead simply vote their emotions, just like they did the last few elections. If they think things are not going well for them peronally, they will conclude their interests are not being represented in DC, and they'll look for another change. And I just don't see a viable third party developing anytime soon.

So if you're part of Obama nation, hope that his programs work and the economy shows some real improvement. Otherwise it will really get ugly for the Democrats quicker than many think.

Two hundred plus letters, most of them just nasty, juvenile personal attacks. I don't particularly like Rush Limbaugh's politics either. But the response here just shows Limbaugh knows what he's doing. He baits the opposition (liberals), and in doing so causes them to expose their worst traits. Based on what I see here, those include a tendency for juvenile personal attacks, outright snobbery, and the desire to censor opposing viewpoints ("fairness" doctrine, anyone?).

You tremendously underestimate Linbaugh (and maybe the opposition) at your own peril. Obama's election is only the first battle in a very long fight, which will have to be based on reasoned arguments and, most importantly, results that voters can see on their most important issue - The economy. There's a very long way to go yet, on an uncertain path. Why do so many here act like (and apparently think) that the fight is already won?