Answering David Letterman’s Question: What ‘More’ We Want From Obama

When I was a kid, my brother and I used to beg our parents to let us stay up on weeknights to catch the first twenty minutes or so of David Letterman’s show on NBC. It aired pretty late in the evening, so if we got to see the opening monologue and whatever humorous bit preceded the guests, we were happy.

Back then, Letterman was the king of innovative and original comedy. His show was different than others in that it presented a style of lowbrow humor that appealed to our inner adolescence. The viewing masses tuned into watch watermelons dropped from the tops of buildings, loud and obscure displays of talent, and a host dedicated to entertaining his audience while refusing to take himself seriously.

People felt comfortable watching Letterman’s presentation because they viewed him as one of them. He didn’t come across as an elitist celebrity, but rather a common man who checked his ego at the door and only wanted to make us laugh.

My how times have changed.

These days, if you flip on Letterman’s show for a laugh or two before you go to bed, there’s a decent chance you’ll find yourself witnessing an angry tirade overflowing with shallow and tired, left-wing propaganda rhetoric. Some nights, the rancor is so bitter and uncomfortable that you have to wonder if the MSNBC hosts watching from home are even wincing and squirming in their seats.

Such a moment took place on Tuesday’s show when NBC News anchor, Brian Williams, was Letterman’s guest. The two were discussing the Obama re-election campaign’s recent use of last year’s successful Osama Bin Laden raid as an argument for why the president deserves a second-term. Letterman was clearly frustrated over the criticism the president has received for invoking the operation into a political argument. He vented that frustration by launching into the kind of cursory, fuming outburst you would expect to find at a rabid anti-war rally along the campus of Berkley.

Not surprisingly, Letterman once again trotted out the typical trite lines about President Bush “not caring” about capturing Bin Laden, and the Iraq war being waged to increase Dick Cheney’s stock portfolio while we “grabbed up all the oil.” He also treated us to his new, nonscensical theory that the Bush administration actually didn’t even want to capture Bin Laden because they were worried about upsetting their “Saudi Arabian royalty buddies.” How terribly creative.

Williams, of course, offered only a half-hearted attempt to dismantle the nonsense.

Letterman then predictably sung the praises of President Obama’s unmatched courage and intelligence and hailed him as the greatest gift to our country since The Statue of Liberty.

Now, I get it. Letterman is a true liberal ideologue and a fierce partisan. He has a very tall soapbox at his immediate disposal five nights a week, so he feels compelled to use it to try and sway his viewers into seeing the world the way he does. That’s certainly his prerogative. It’s just a sad reality that the days of David Letterman as a comedic genius who just wanted to entertain us are long gone.

There was one legitimately interesting moment in the interview, however. It was the last sentence that Letterman spoke in the segment. He threw out this question to Americans, regarding President Obama: “What more do we want this man to do for us?”

It’s the kind of question that could only be asked with a straight face when coming from a disconnected, far-left elitist who clearly has no clue as to the challenges and concerns of the common American, nearly four years into the Obama administration.

Only someone like Letterman could see a chronically high unemployment rate, a crippling and ever-increasing national debt that we’re burdening our children with, anemic U.S. economic growth, a workforce participation rate at historic lows, record-breaking gas prices, and failing social safety nets… and ask what more we could possibly expect from the leader of our country.

Only someone like Letterman could listen to the administration’s every-day stoking of class envy and the promotion of nonsensical tax increases, and wonder how we could possibly be unhappy with the president.

Only someone like Letterman could watch his political party divide us into demographics over fake disputes, and label their opposition as racists, and wonder why we aren’t happy with our president.

Only someone like Letterman could witness the economies of European nations crumble and their citizens riot in the streets, and wonder why Americans aren’t eager to follow our president’s push for the same types of policies that led to those environments.

Only someone like Letterman could expect us to be content with a president who refuses to put forth serious national budgets, and demagogues the reforming of our entitlement programs that are quickly becoming insolvent.

Only someone like Letterman could wonder why we’re not applauding the president for routinely distracting us from our nation’s problems, rather than actually fixing those problems.

Mr. Letterman, I’ll tell you what ‘more’ we want from this president. We want him to start showing us and our children some of the same respect that you clearly have for him.

Author Bio:

John Daly couldn't have cared less about world events and politics until the horrific 9/11 terrorist attacks changed his perspective. Since then, he's been deeply engaged in the news of the day with a particular interest in how that news is presented. Realizing the importance of the media in a free, democratic society, John has long felt compelled to identify media injustices when he sees them. With a B.S. in Business Administration, and a 16 year background in software and web development, John has found that his real passion is for writing. His first novel, entitled "From a Dead Sleep", is now on sale! He lives in Northern Colorado with his wife and two children. Like John on Facebook. Follow John on Twitter.
Author website: http://www.johndalybooks.com/
  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_KJB6LG6DZV2DNDGZ6F3WG3SJRY Ray

    No one is watching these late night shows because they are not funny or even mildly amusing. Their inability to say anything remotely offensive about Obama has made viewing them so boring and political it’s not entertaining anymore. And the old blame Bush is so tiresome and stupid, no one is buying that either. The shows are no longer interesting and a complete waste of time. Just think of the great comedy they are missing with all the crazy things going on. I could write a better routine than these shows have.

  • Illinois8463

    As unbelievable as it sounds, there are people who’s only
    source of “hard news” is John Stewart, Steven Colbert and SNL. These foks can’t tell the difference between comedy and the real thing ergo it shouldn’t be a surprise they can’t tell the difference between a real president and a community organizer

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/PPL2AXPXJMWPEJWFN34MPC5RNY terry

    A VERY LONG FEDERAL SENTENCE

  • Homer

     What a wonderful way to end such a conclusive article

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/HWB25TXIAQVWNRYA4K2SFCHA5E Jeannette

    Same goes for Letterman — although since I haven’t watched him for years I guess I wouldn’t know the difference.  He made me angry when he tried to be “funny” about shoe-throwing at then-President Bush.  Yeah, the guy is about as funny as a heart attack.  And I know full well that heart attacks are NOT funny. 

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/HWB25TXIAQVWNRYA4K2SFCHA5E Jeannette

    I can’t think of much to say except that I want less and less of obama.  And the quicker the better.  November cannot come soon enough to suit me. 

    Well, there is one thing more I would like from obama:  that’s for him to resign.  Today.

  • genann59

    Yeah. Agreed.

  • Ghostbeliever

    Letterman is after all nothing more than an overpaid television late night host. Isn’t it very peculiar that we never hear any stories about ‘how much money’ people such as he earn (Brian Williams, George Clooney also)? People who ‘adore’ and admire his rhetoric are to my way of thinking on a par with the so-called intelligentzia that were in lock step with Hitler and Goebbels, and the rest of the vermin that brought about WW II! That’s a drum that has to continue to be pounded until everyone in this country stops focusing on “Dancing With the Hasbeens”, “American Idol”, the “NFL”, and all those other insignicant distractions, and begin to focus on the salvation of the USA! We’ve become a snowball on an icy slope, picking up speed, and unless we come across a miracle in our path, surely there is going to be a tragic crash!

  • Tim Ned

    I couldn’t agree more with this article.  I quit watching Letterman years ago and he seems to have become extremely bitter.  His late show after Carson was great.  But not anymore.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_DGT5LFXDWHPKRWLSI2WPBXIGXE Wil

     Just six months after 9/11, Bush suggested in a press conference that Bin
    Laden was not a top priority for his administration. Asked whether Bush thought
    capturing Bin Laden was important, Bush scolded those who cared about Bin Laden
    for not “understand[ing] the scope of the mission” because Bin Laden was just
    “one person,” whom Bush said, “I really just don’t spend that
    much time on“:

    Who knows if he’s hiding in some cave or not. We haven’t heard from him in a
    long time. The idea of focusing on one person really indicates to me
    people don’t understand the scope of the mission. Terror is bigger than
    one person. He’s just a person who’s been marginalized. … I don’t know where he
    is. I really just don’t spend that much time on him, to be honest with
    you.

     

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PGmnz5Ow-o

    John, Did you know the House & Senate Republicans are intentionally
    stalling efforts to jumpstart the economy to insure that Barack Obama is not
    reelected. They are the reason, our country is not recovering at a faster
    rate!

    • 1LonesomeDove1

      How can they be stalling it when the democrats have the majority?

      How? By your lying about it.

    • Tim Ned

      Wil,

      Just a few weeks prior to Bin Laden being taken down by Seal Team 6, Gen. Petraeus in an interview said just about the same what you quoted Bush above.  He said they had no idea where he was and had no new clues.

      Wil, do you really believe Gen. Petraeus was “Clueless” in the pursuit of Bin Laden?  Reasonable people would presume that such responses to questions are intent on downplaying the true facts.

    • John Daly

      As you very well know, Bush did no such thing. He was merely expressing confidence in the jobs our intelligence agencies and military were doing by making the point that he doesn’t have to stress out about Bin Laden with them on the case.

      Every left-wing knuckle-head already knows this. They just like pretending they don’t so they can sputter out winy bumper-sticker slogans.

      Obama’s ‘drones’ aren’t just flying around in the middle-east. They’re also trolling regularly on the internet.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_DGT5LFXDWHPKRWLSI2WPBXIGXE Wil

        He said what he said! G W Bush, worst president ever!

        nuff said!

        • John Daly

          President Obama said we have more than 50 states. Do you think he really believes that?

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_DGT5LFXDWHPKRWLSI2WPBXIGXE Wil

            50 States &:

            Under
            U.S. Jurisdiction (14) * American Samoa * Baker Island * Guam
            * Howland Island * Jarvis Island * Johnston Atoll * Kingman Reef
            * Midway Islands * Navassa Island * Northern Mariana Islands *
            Palmyra Atoll * Puerto Rico * Virgin Islands * Wake Island 

          • Jeffreydan

              It appears you and Obama are equally clueless about the number of states. When you’re old enough to be a parent, will you also mistake your kid’s age?  

          • John Daly

            Leave it to Wil to take an obvious and innocent gaffe, and try to defend it as being accurate.

            That’s truly pathetic. There are a lot of libs who have man-crushes on our president, but few would even go this far. 

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_DGT5LFXDWHPKRWLSI2WPBXIGXE Wil

            Well, at least Obama gaffe wasn’t starting two wars put off  budget. Hey John, didn’t you vote for Bush two time! Now, that’s really a 
            man-crush!

          • John Daly

            My 7-year-old son puts up better arguments than you, Wil.

            Stop embarrassing yourself.

          • Jeffreydan

              Willie should take your advice. We expect better from our 9-year-old visitors here.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_DGT5LFXDWHPKRWLSI2WPBXIGXE Wil

             If that is your retort, I’d say better then you.  Why do facts upset you people, so?

        • concerned

          You must be getting some of Obama money.   Do you work more than just your mouth? Your statement reveals you have no brain to engage in honest debate.

  • Michael

    Aside from the fact that he has a national television platform, Letterman is just another dirty old mean-spirited man.

  • Vince Ricardo

    Letterman jumped the shark when he hosted the Oscars. I believe that he was truly deeply hurt that his idealogical buddies generally panned his performance as one of the worst hosting stints at the Oscars, ever. This had followed on the heels (a couple of years) of his losing out on hosting The Tonight Show to Jay Leno. His descent into hostile, open bitterness began at that time. Frankly, I’ll never, EVER understand how anyone that makes that much cash can be bitter at ALL.

    I, also, used to enjoy Letterman back in the late 80s-early 90s. Goofy, self-deprecating, offbeat comedy. As liberal as Conan O’Brien is, it was good to see someone take over that “brand” of late night talk show when Letterman lost it. If and when I watch a late night tv show, I’ll just tune into O’Brien. Life can be too bitter as it is, I don’t need to see it in an entertainment show. There’s just too much else to do with one’s life, even that late.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_DGT5LFXDWHPKRWLSI2WPBXIGXE Wil

      Frankly, I’ll never, EVER understand how anyone that makes that much cash can be bitter at ALL.>>
       Ever listen to Rush Limbaugh?

      • 1LonesomeDove1

         Rush isn’t bitter.
        He’s received plenty of awards and honors for his work, so if you’re gonna spew  “Ever listen to Rush Limbaugh?”…then please tell us what Rush said that makes him so bitter about awards.

        Unless, of course….you’re speaking from your anus again.

        • concerned

          Good on you

      • concerned

        Rush is not bitter, he is good at what he does which is putting a burr under the saddle of the idiot left wing haters of truth and America.  It pisses them off because Rush is right and they are wrong on every issue.

  • Kathie Ampela

    Letterman has jumped the shark. The example you’ve used in this article, John, blows past stealth media bias (like the example I gave previously about the unflattering Obama sketch SNL killed) and is up to hyper partisanship. It’s offensive, unfunny and boring; I stopped watching many years ago. Dave is nasty, mean spirited and unpleasant.  Jay Leno is center Left but at least welcoming to all, Jon Stewart more middle Left with moments of fairness, Dave is the far left and most despicable. I started watching Dave in the summer of 1983 when I was 16. I was only allowed to stay up that late during the summer months in those years. I thought he was different…not exactly side splittingly funny but innovative for that time. I don’t recall any politics being injected into the shows back then. He always seemed a little uncomfortable in his own skin, but nothing like this. Perhaps he’s so rich now that he’s bored with the show and doesn’t care anymore. The only good thing I can say is over the top partisanship is recognizable; you either love it or hate it. We know exactly what Dave’s about, no mystery here.  Stealth manipulation is far more prevalent in the news media, Hollywood and academia and much more insidious.  I know it’s been many years now, but I don’t recall Johnny Carson having any particular political persuasion, I wonder what he’d say about all of this.

    • Kathie Ampela

      Want to add another thought. I remember back in 83′ when I first discovered Letterman, I watched Johnny at 11:30 and stay tuned for Dave at 12:30. I look back now and realize why Jay Leno was chosen as Johnny’s successor over Letterman. Jay was always at ease with himself and a welcoming presence whereas Dave always seemed to be thumbing his nose at the traditional Establishment, even back then, in a very, very subtle way. Perhaps as a 16 year old kid that was the draw to me…Johnny was the master of the “grown up” audience and Dave poked fun at the grown ups in a harmless, goofball way. I think this partisan creature was there all along waiting to be released when the time was right. We weren’t paying attention.

  • cmacrider

    John:  I find it curious you should write this article since a few days ago I was thinking that we no longer have the comedians on T.V. of the quality of Johnny Carson, Red Skeleton, and Jack Benny.   Maybe its my age …. but for me personally Letterman at his highest level is a 10 minute novelty.  He really isn’t a professional comedian.

    • John Daly

      I think the Letterman of the 80s and early 90s was extremely funny. Not just him, but his show as a whole. Carson was certainly the king, and today’s late-night comedians are pathetic in comparison.

      • RockCollection

        I just want to point out that Carson did take Dave under his wing and anointed Dave as his successor in public and private. I’m a huge fan of Dave the comedian and he’s top class on his day, even if in the past decade he’s stopped trying and gotten political. He also never had Carson’s broad appeal, but he’s still a great talent.

        • John Daly

          Letterman’s without a doubt a great talent. Carson was right to see something special in him.

          His bitterness and self-righteousness in recent years, however, has been his undoing.

  • RockCollection

    He’s clearly a liberal but Obama making bin Laden a priority after Bush had backed off is a fact, and not in the same category as the Cheney/oil conspiracies he brought up.

    And on the economic side of things Obama is at fault for waste and debt, but he has nothing to do with oil prices and he’s done everything Congress has allowed him to do in terms of jobs and unemployment. Economists and market analysts unequivocally agree on these points, no matter which side they’re on. A negative shock of that size means at least 10 years of subpar growth no matter who’s in charge.

    • cmacrider

      Rock:  You are right … your in for 10 years of subpar growth because the decision was made to implement Keynesian economics …. which has proven to simply prolong a recession …. check the Japanese experience if you doubt what I say.

      • RockCollection

        Yeah, the USA may very well be worse off in the long-run because of Keynesian policies. But poor growth/unemployment figures right now have little to do with Obama’s policies, it’s more down the road that the negative repercussions will be felt. Japan’s a bit unusual, we handled our crisis swifter and more effectively, and their demographics are a big reason for their stagnation as well. With that said I’m not too optimistic about our future. 

        • John Daly

          They have EVERYTHING to do with Obama’s policies.

          President Obama certainly didn’t cause the great recession, but he has done just about everything possible to ensure an anemic recovery.

          He’s driven our national debt through the roof (crushing the value of the dollar), over-regulated, saddled employers with uncertainty over Obamacare, threatened tax-hikes at every turn, and made Americans far too dependent on the government.

          You’re right in that it will get even worse down the road, but our current economy is also very much a symptom of his policies.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_DGT5LFXDWHPKRWLSI2WPBXIGXE Wil

            This is what happened under Bush? We cut taxes on the rich and doubled
            military spending. (Off budget) Started  two wars.  And don’t forget collapsing
            the economy, forcing people onto unemployment and food stamps. That is why we
            have a deficit. We have a deficit because of tax cuts for the rich, huge
            military budget increases and the consequences of deregulating corporations.
            This is what President Obama has had to deal with since he entered office.

          • 1LonesomeDove1

            In 2006 when Bush joined with Democrats and endorsed raising the federal minimum wage by $2.10, to $7.25 an hour, over two years, his tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 were alredy in effect, so he also stressed that the wage hike should be accompanied by tax breaks and regulatory relief that would cushion the blow for small businesses.
            Democrats said they didn’t want to complicate their effort to raise the minimum wage by linking that issue to business tax breaks.
            Democrats hate tax breaks, so what happened after the minimum wage hike? We saw news headlines that said BOTH “Dems called for ending tax cuts for rich”…and….”Democrats Push for Temporary Tax Cuts”.

            Naw, the media doesn’t want to keep the voting populace confused, now do they?

            But what actually happened was that more than 500,000 part-time jobs were lost.

            Did the democrats take the heat for lost jobs?

            No! We saw headlines like…………..”Bush’s Minimum Wage Increase Killed Jobs”.

            http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2010/03/05/bushs-minimum-wage-increase-killed-jobs/

          • Jeffreydan

              Give it up, Slick. You know every taxpayer got the tax cut, not just the rich ones.   

              I know you think it’s unfair when rich people keep more of their money, but they do pay most of the taxes in the first place, and there is a such thing as equal treatment under the law.

              Blaming President Bush may make you feel better, but you’re blaming a guy who, fiscally, was governing like a LIBERAL (2nd term). In his first term, when he governed more like a conservative and the democrats hadn’t overtaken Congress yet, things were better.  

              BTW, the Fannie & Freddie fiasco was a key factor in this whole mess, as much as you’d like to ignore it. In case you forgot, democrats were in control of it, and they said there was nothing to worry about when President Bush suggested some regulatory restraints should be in place.

              Bush ain’t the one who just did more deficit spending in 3 years than most presidents do in 8, the economy Obama “inherited” was not Bush’s fault so much as liberal policies’ fault, and it’s not Bush’s fault that Obama is barely fit to run a mall kiosk.       

                

                 

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_DGT5LFXDWHPKRWLSI2WPBXIGXE Wil

            Everything wrong,  Obama has to contend with, is Bush’s fault!

          • 1LonesomeDove1

            Yep! Say it, but don’t prove it. A typical Will day.

          • Jeffreydan

              I fail to see how President Bush could have caused Obama to be the amazingly bad president he is. While you obviously agree Republicans are superior to democrats, you still shouldn’t believe one of them could have that kind of influence on others.

              

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_DGT5LFXDWHPKRWLSI2WPBXIGXE Wil

            President Obama certainly didn’t cause the great recession, but he has done just about everything possible to ensure we didn’t go into a  deep depression. Those are the facts!

          • Jeffreydan

              How are you planning to prove the “fact” that his actions ensured we wouldn’t go into a deep depression?     

    • sendtheclunkerbacktochicago

      There is nothing truthful about Barack Hussein Obama.  A famous conservative stated that “Obama is the least qualified in any room he walks into” and we have watched this play out over and over again.  The only call he made that was positive for the country was taking out bin Laden.  They should have captured him, the seals were more than capable of doing that.  I believe they were told to kill him or the mission would have never been approved.  No one wants to talk about the heavy price we paid for the killing of bin Laden.  Not long after they took out Obama the Navy Seals lost 21 in an ambush, an ambush that has never been vetted.   I would like to know why 21 Navy Seals were on one chopper, they DO NOT OPERATE that way, what the hell happen?  Of course that make Obama look like an asshole so they squash that story as quick as it happened.   That is just conjecture but it fits the Obama MO.  The liberals pounded on Bush for “waterboarding” but love this guy for “killing” these towel heads.  That should tell you something about their dishonesty. 

      Obama is not long away from a resignation.  He will not survive all the ballot challenges going on around the country.  Oh, that’s right, you wouldn’t know about them, the Bernies of this world refuse to comment on them.  Some of these ballot challenges are on good appeals and the one in Florida is being headed by the founder of Judicial Watch, Larry Klayman.  That will have legs sooner or later.  Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his investigative team will not be frightened away, they have the goods on this criminal and the media will eventually have to cover the criminal activity.   Drudge just posted a story in which it seems Barack Hussein Obama finally told the truth, he was born in Kenya as many have suspected.  One can spin the wheels off the car, the damage is done.  These little stories become big stories as those who tell so many lies they are not able to keep track of them all.  

      • Jeffreydan

          Send,

          The fixation on BO’s birthplace is getting really old. I’m curious if you’re capable of going a couple of posts without mentioning it.

        • sendtheclunkerbacktochicago

          All this crap about Obama’s past relationships is useless.   To keep it simple for ya Jeffreydan, “it is the crimes stupid.”  That is why I keep pounding and posting about this scandal of the century, this Constitutional scandal of the century.  I take it you don’t give a crap about this con man from Chicago bitch slapping you day after day.  This guy is the Commander in Chief for crying out loud and he has usurped the highest office in the land and we are focused on his failed policies and his past associates.  Nixon resigned for much less.  These are blatant crimes and folks like Jeffreydan  could care less.  Amazing!!

          • Jeffreydan

              I’ll keep it simple for you as well. I think BO is the worst kind of politician, and is a cancer to this country.

              If you had read any comment I’ve ever posted or any column I’ve written, you’d know I care a great deal. What, you think a guy can’t be both a passionate conservative and bored by your fixation on the birther stuff? You’ve made your point, repeating it ad nauseum won’t make it any more.   

          • sendtheclunkerbacktochicago

            I don’t care if you are bored, I am sure people become bored with guys like Sean Hannity who keep hammering away at the same subject over and over again but they keep tuning in.   Hannity and the folks at Fox fear taking their vetting to the next level, the CRIMES.  Its the crimes stupid!!

    • John Daly

      The notion that Bush backed off of finding Bin Laden and Obama prioritized it is a media myth. There’s no evidence at all to support that. That narrative ranks right up their with the Halliburton nonsense.

      Even Brian Williams (in the Letterman interview) had to concede that the Bush administration was very engaged in finding Bin Laden all along – they just didn’t publicize their efforts.

      Obama merely let those efforts continue after taking office and was lucky enough to be the man in the oval office once the intelligence collected during the Bush years finally led the CIA to Bin Laden’s hide-out.

      Economists and market analysts DO NOT unequivocally agree that the president has done everything he can. That’s a ridiculous statement.

      When the world-wide economic meltdown hit, every country that followed President Obama’s lead of massive stimulus spending and expansion of government has done terribly. Countries like Germany that shrank government and lowered taxes saw their economies roar back to life. Now all of Europe is begging and pleading with Germany to save them from total insolvency after they all made the same mistake was our country did.

      Every time the United States has embraced supply-side economics, our economy has improved greatly, whether it was John F. Kennedy or Ronald Reagan that implemented it.

      The notion that nothing can be done to pull us out of  10 years of sub-par growth is absurd. Germany did it in just two. In the early 80s, Reagan did it in three.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_DGT5LFXDWHPKRWLSI2WPBXIGXE Wil

         Ronald Reagan had two severe recessions and raised taxes 11 times! And, BTW, 
        supply-side economics is a Laffer.

        • 1LonesomeDove1

          Reagan left us with a net tax decrease. Do some research.

      • RockCollection

        I’m not qualified enough to respond re: Bin Laden but I’ll happily do the economics.
        Germany enacted two separate large stimulus packages. Their first one was too small at 31billion euros,  so they followed up with a 50billion package, the largest in the world outside the USA and Japan in terms of % of GDP (yes, larger than France, Italy, Spain, the UK). Spain beats Germany only if you include election pledges, which would be questionable. 
         
        Germany is doing better now for a number of reasons: Their economy and government struggled miserably for many years post-unification. It wasn’t until 2000 that they became competitive and their economy started to pick up. Around that time they joined the euro, and their success and transformation into a top exporter enabled the profligacy of the eurozone periphery for many years, because of how the eurozone is structured. Their good policies, small government, tight labor market conditions, etc. all helped, but the dynamics of the European market are more complex than that. The common currency and structure of the EU encouraged Germany to produce and the periphery to spend because of the qualities of the individual economies. The reason Germany needed a large stimulus was because they are very dependent on exports, and export demand of course crashed so they needed something to prop up their economy. But export demand picked up again and Germany bounced back quicker.  
        Germany also barely had a housing bubble unlike the rest of Europe. In fact asset values in general didn’t really inflate there, which is another quality of the eurozone (spending took place in the rest of EU, while selling took place in Germany). So Germany also has the advantage of not having suffered a huge drop in wealth, unlike most developed economies. But the biggest factor and the key to all this is the Eurozone.

        Germany has tried to limit government involvement and their labor reforms have worked very well, but they enacted a larger stimulus than anyone outside the US and Japan. From The Spiegel’s staff:
        http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,707231,00.html 

        The 2008 crash is the biggest downturn since the Great Depression, and you can’t find one economist or market analyst with decent credentials who thinks a two-year recovery is possible. Just because we use the same word (“recession”) for something doesn’t mean that they are all equal.

    • Paul Courtney

      Rock:  A fact, huh?  Based on what, Bush’s statements that finding Bin Laden was not the highest priority at a time we had troops on the ground under fire in Iraq and Afg.?  Fine, but try this on- currently we have a controversy between CIA guys over whether water boarding produced results back in the day.  Even if it didn’t work, the press narrative is that Bush tortured guys to get intelligence-to find Bin Laden!  Sound like a low priority to you?  Further, what indicates to you that Obama made this a higher priority than Bush?  Everything we’ve seen tells us that Obama simply carried forward the same policies as Bush, you know, the ones he campaigned against.  Where’s the Obama speech, or even a memo, from ’09, or ’10, or early ’11, that shows he upped this as a priority?

      • Dg11703

        Paul, some of these people read or think nothing unless it is in the democratic manifesto publication.  They are willingly blind and deaf to truth.  True democrats cry for diversity as long as you agree with them.

    • concerned

      No matter how you say it Obama is anti-american.  Hia political appointments are left of Stalin and most all did not or do not pay the same tax they are demanding everyone else pay.  They are Communist in ideology and action.  They are not socialist they are communists.

  • robin in fl

    I agree..I too use to enjoy Letterman and also even Bill Maher  at times said some funny stuff…but now a days they both just seem like  2 old angry guys that hate anyone that doesn’t have the same opinion  as they do..so NOT funny..like 2 mean school yard bullies they are now,sad but true :(

  • Mary

    So true about Letterman, I use to watch him all the time. Leno makes jokes and that’s what they are jokes. Letterman is a mean has-been, he is on the same level as
    Bill Maher both are evil in my book. Wouldn’t give either one of them the time of day
    or night! [pardon the pun]

  • Jeffreydan

      Letterman’s show used to be an entertaining mix of sharp wit, tongue-in-cheek wisecracks, and carefree goofiness. I eventually got tired of his act when he would keep uttering boring stuff to amuse himself, thinking the whole world found it hilarious.

      Now the guy is pitiful. When he said early on he couldn’t picture coming up with any jokes about Obama, it was almost as sickening as Chris Matthews’ arousal from the guy’s speech.