Yes, a lot of people are going to lose their jobs, and that's a shame. It will cause a lot of hardship. But that's inevitable. And one of the strengths of America is our flexible, dynamic economy. We must continue to embrace change, understanding that the loss of jobs in one unproductive area can be countered by a gain in a new, more productive industry. It's not easy, but it's how we can best recover from this economic meltdown.

So far, I've held my nose and voted for him, figuring that an "official" Republican would be worse, but I'm not so sure that I can continue to do that. I'd like to see a primary challenge, even though it would have no chance at all (even in the primary, let alone the general election).

In general, Democratic candidates for statewide elections in Nebraska tend to be tokens, since they have such a poor chance of winning. And Democrats don't win lesser elections, so they don't get name recognition. Even these days, Nebraska is solidly Republican. Hard to believe after eight years of Bush, isn't it?

Yeah, the unions are still a powerful force in the Democratic Party, but a much smaller percentage of American workers are unionized these days. And a LOT of Americans distrust unions. I understand wanting to change that, but there is no way you can make secret ballots seem like a bad thing - or make doing away with secret ballots seem like anything but "union bosses" dictating to Democratic politicians.

Call it anything you want, but this bill is made to order for the Republicans.

I've got to say that this is pretty typical for the Democratic Party, though. They don't seem to WANT to be the majority party.

The Republicans have a great opportunity here, and they know it. Why do you think they're running ads night and day, explaining that the Democratic Party is against secret ballots, because they're beholden to big union bosses?

Talk about shooting ourselves in the foot! How could this possibly make sense? Maybe - MAYBE - you could justify the intent of this act,... but at the expense of this kind of political fallout? I just don't get it.

Furthermore, we have just suffered under the worst president - and the worst presidential administration - in U.S. history. That makes us gun-shy, I'm sure. We don't ever want the same thing to happen, so we don't ever want to 'trust' another president. But that's an error. We are over-reacting. Trust is necessary, it really is.

Let's not lose our sense, just because we've been burned so badly by Bush. A cat won't jump on a hot stove a second time, but it won't jump on a cold one, either. Let's try to be rational and reasonable, and avoid knee-jerk reactions.

And Bobby Rush is still pushing the racial angle on all this? I'm beginning to wonder if all three of them haven't been partners in some kind of scam. Are they all crooked, or just stupid? Or has ambition merely taken control of every single brain cell?

And Bobby Rush is still pushing the racial angle on all this? I'm beginning to wonder if all three of them haven't been partners in some kind of scam. Are they all crooked, or just stupid? Or has ambition merely taken control of every single brain cell?

And you're dreaming if you think that Bush 'destroyed' the Republican Party. Anyone remember Richard Nixon and Watergate? How long did the fallout from that continue? One election?

The GOP is not dead and not gone. They'll be back, and quicker than you expect. Let's just hope that they've learned something, so that the next Republican president isn't another Bush (or a Palin). We NEED an opposition party, but not one controlled by religious lunatics.

And you're dreaming if you think that Bush 'destroyed' the Republican Party. Anyone remember Richard Nixon and Watergate? How long did the fallout from that continue? One election?

The GOP is not dead and not gone. They'll be back, and quicker than you expect. Let's just hope that they've learned something, so that the next Republican president isn't another Bush (or a Palin). We NEED an opposition party, but not one controlled by religious lunatics.

After all, how could we be against secret ballots? When it comes to organizing unions, there shouldn't be any intimidation on EITHER side. If there is intimidation on the management side (which wouldn't surprise anyone), then that should be addressed directly.

Obvious, huh? So I assume there must be more to it than that. Tell me this isn't just about secret ballots. (And who decided to give the opposition ammunition like this?)

Well, the money still isn't there, but now we're in a situation where we just can't worry about the deficit. Not right now. Barack Obama not only CAN spend, but MUST. Yeah, there will still be a reckoning, but it's only prudent to put it off until the economy is healthy again.

That means that he has a real chance to turn things around, to really make a difference in the long-term,... but only if he makes investments for the 21st Century. OK, sure, he needs to spend fast, but he also needs to spend RIGHT. This is a huge opportunity here, and he shouldn't waste it by just throwing money out of a helicopter.

Give every American money to spend, and we'll spend much of it, and pay down bills or save the rest. But none of that is an INVESTMENT. Use the money to make real investments in education and 21st Century technology, and it will more than pay for itself in the long run. (I'm much less enamored over spending on 20th Century infrastructure like roads and bridges.)

IMHO, it really DOES matter how the money is spent. In fact, it's critically important. Will we make real investments for the future, or just hand out money in the old, politically-popular way?