Try looking forward

This letter was prompted by Robert Lacombe’s letter, “America needs help,” printed Oct. 24.

It is always easy to look back and see just how great or bad an administration was. We need to stop looking back and begin to truly look forward.

President Barack Obama’s so-called failings, in my opinion, are not even part of the problem. Admittedly, the president wasn’t as forceful as some would have liked; however, I find him a truly patient and thoughtful man.

The real and true problem lies with the Congress and the Republicans, with their outright shameful and disgusting attitude of making Obama a one-term president. To me, that is criminal, given that their mandate simply prevents any and all forward-moving offerings. Representatives are elected to do the people’s bidding to ensure a proper and equitable quality of life for all.

Politically, they feel as though they are doing the right thing, but I truly feel that their path of action for another year will backfire on them at the next election.

Given the discontent of the public about what hasn’t been done in the wake of their vendetta, many up for re-election will fall and their control will be diminished, allowing Obama the opportunity to truly shine in his next term.

I haven’t seen a viable Republican candidate yet, and don’t expect to see one. With proper backing, I do believe Obama could do wonders for our country.

Marc A.J. Jalbert, Lewiston

What do you think of this story?

Login to post comments

In order to make comments, you must create a subscription.

In order to comment on, you must hold a valid subscription allowing access to this website. You must use your real name and include the town in which you live in your profile. To subscribe or link your existing subscription click here.

Login or create an account here.

Our policy prohibits comments that are:

  • Defamatory, abusive, obscene, racist, or otherwise hateful
  • Excessively foul and/or vulgar
  • Inappropriately sexual
  • Baseless personal attacks or otherwise threatening
  • Contain illegal material, or material that infringes on the rights of others
  • Commercial postings attempting to sell a product/item
If you violate this policy, your comment will be removed and your account may be banned from posting comments.



PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Kool-Aid, anyone?

Kool-Aid, anyone?

Joe Morin's picture

Oh Marc... Barak had a

Oh Marc... Barak had a supermajority that he used to shove his agenda down our throat. He gamed the system and issued execuitve orders. The Dems. lost the house because of his disregard for popular sentiment or our process of govt.. He stands on his ideaology, his policies and their results. Cats out of the bag! Redistribution of wealth, class warfare and eutopian pipe dreams are just pipe dreams. They use to call it snake oil salesman or " a turkey in every pot". The president reaps what he sows, he embarrased and insuted the Rep. for two years. Told the country that they wanted to kill old women and children, shoved through Obama care even after Mass elected Scott he crys about obstriuctionism??? Are yu freakin kidding me???? I work for a private business and my prosperity and fortune will improve with the departure of our current president. Why are you folks so compelled to change the system that has provided us with so much prosperity?? Look around the world.

 's picture

Blame the Republicans

That's all you people like to do, yet you fail to see that Berry O had total control of the government for 2 years. You had Democrat President, and a House of Representatives (both chambers) in total control of the Democrats. This President for 2 tears didn't need one Republican vote to pass his agenda. His only want for a bipartisan vote, was so that he had a scape goat when this house of cards comes falling down around him. And it will. You think this employment rate will go down with the current policies and what he wants in the near future. Don't count on it, its not designed to work the way he says it will. You can't and you don't create long term employment by spending more at the federal level. His job creation that he likes to brag about so much has happened at the federal level (over 100,000 new federal jobs and counting since he took office) wow. So who will support those federal jobs as the private sector shrinks. There is your house of cards. He is choking the private sector with his current policies. Look at health care. It was revealed this past week that health care alone could loose over 200,000 jobs in the next 2 yrs do to his current policies in place in order to support Obama care.

 's picture

yeah right

"You can't and you don't create long term employment by spending more at the federal level." Remember that when the gop starts whining about defense cuts costing the USA jobs. Federal spending does not create (or save) jobs!

And, if "He is choking the private sector with his current policies", maybe he should start choking the whole country. Corporations are just sitting on record amounts of cash they are not investing due to lack of demand.

The only thing that has ever proven to work in all situations every time is tax cuts for people and corporations who don't need them. And, there is even a direct correlation between eliminating the estate tax and curing athlete's foot!

1. Tax cuts for the best off...
2. ????
3. Profit!

 's picture

Class envy

is your answer to what this President is doing. Nice, class envy. If you were half as intelligent as you try to make yourself out to be you would know that corporations don't spend money when they are waiting to see when the next shoe drops, on how much tax they are going to pay for a frivolous government.As for your knowledge on military spending, you need to also know that military expenditures rise and fall with what this country involves itself in over seas. Go ask the boys in Bath how often they lay off and hire, all having to do with what our military is involved with at any given time. How many projects are not canceled, even when the military says it doesn't want a particular piece of equipment, cause some senator like the late Ted Kennedy won't allow it to be done away with. The C5 Galaxy was on the chopping block to be retired cause of issues with it air frame. Kennedy was able to block the retirement of that air craft because one of the major bases for the C5 was in Mass. Mow many times have the Democrat senators from New York been able to block the closure of the NAG bases in northern NY state. So don't tell me the GOP will be crying if military spending is cut. The F35 joint strike fighter is having to deal with having 2 mind you 2 jet engines cause GE wanted a piece of the action even though Pratt Whitney's engine did the what the military specified and then some. Wonder how that came about. Does GE's CEO have an office at the White House.

 's picture

pay attention

Went right over your head, didn't it? "You can't and you don't create long term employment by spending more at the federal level." Since military spending is federal, does military spending create or save jobs? (crickets)

And that joint strike fighter engine? "both President Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates have said they do not want work to continue on the alternate engine that GE and Rolls Royce have been developing. The Pentagon has issued a stop work order for the GE engine and officially stopped payment."

 's picture

Is the F35 engine program dead yet?

Not by a long shot according to your article. The Senate Armed Services committee has kept it alive all this time and are looking to force the Pentagon to continue development as long as it is self funded(doubt that will happen). If the funds do show up in the final procurement bill it will be recommended that Obama veto the bill. Do you think he will burn Jeffrey his bud after all Jeffrey has done for him. Don't think so.

You need to read the whole article Jr. Another little tidbit from that same article.
"But the House Armed Services Committee, in addition to seeking to prolong the life of the Joint Strike Fighter's alternate engine, also wants to develop two engines for another aircraft, a long-range bomber. In a May letter to the Committee, a top Pentagon official said that "mandating such development will result in increased cost and risk."

Also military spending is government spending, but spent in the private sector and therefore can be moved from one supplier to another at anytime. So if the government purchases ships built on the east coast one year then turns around and spends that money the following year on the west coast or in the gulf states, is that long term or short term employment for the east coast?

 's picture

GOP controlled House, not the

GOP controlled House, not the Senate: "The House Armed Services Committee's version of the defense authorization bill would force the Pentagon to allow GE to keep developing and testing the second engine" Why? Boehner's district. "The Senate version of the FY12 defense bill did not include any similar provision."

When was the last time BIW was completely shut down? No Navy work, no employees, lights out?


Stay informed — Get the news delivered for free in your inbox.

I'm interested in ...