The GOP and right-wing die-hards have hated Obama from the start. Now, just about everyone, left and right, is at least annoyed with him, and more likely, fed up.

The folks at politifact.com have maintained their Obameter tracking, by their count, president Obama's 505 campaign promises.

• No. 38: Repeal the Bush tax cuts for higher incomes


• No. 126: Begin removing combat brigades from Iraq


• No. 175: End the use of torture


• No. 177: Close the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center


• No. 180: Restrict warrantless wiretaps

Sheesh. What a case of "Inaction in action."

In 2007, the American Freedom Agenda Act (H.R. 3835) failed (never made it out of committee).

President Obama, will you commit to restoring the Constitution's checks and balances and protections against government abuses that we gave up under the Bush administration? Any future president can use them again, unless we correct these wrongs.

Specifically:

• Fully restore the right to challenge the legality of one's detention, or habeas corpus, and the right of detained suspects to be charged and brought to trial.
• Prohibit torture and all cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
• Prohibit the use of secret evidence.
• Prohibit the detention of anyone, including U.S. citizens, as an "enemy combatant" outside the battlefield, and on the President's say-so alone.
• Prohibit the government from secretly breaking and entering our homes, tapping our phones or email, or seizing our computers without a court order, on the President's say-so alone.
• Prohibit the President from "disappearing" anyone and holding them in secret detention.
• Prohibit the executive from claiming "state secrets" to deny justice to victims of government misdeeds, and from claiming "executive privilege" to obstruct Congressional oversight and an open government.
• Prohibit the abuse of signing statements, where the President seeks to disregard duly enacted provisions of bills.
• Use the federal courts, or courts-martial, to charge and prosecute terrorism suspects, and close Guantanamo down.
• Reaffirm that the Espionage Act does not prohibit journalists from reporting on classified national security matters without fear of prosecution.

The Jones appointment is being criticized on the left as dubious and poorly vetted but hardly a threat to the nation. On the right it’s being treated with a hysteria that is as crazy as the craziest of the 9/11 “truthers.” “Truthers” are a fringe among liberals. But among the right, utterly crackpot, dishonest and insanely demagogic ranters have become legion, promoted, widely praised and even granted leadership roles.

Jones is not high on my radar – he’s a better appointment – not as crazy and likely more competent – than a couple of dozen aides to Bush. The hyper-platitudinous, Twilight Zone-inhabiting Christian Right was handed thousands of square feet of executive office space by Rove. As were disastrous cronies and hacks like Harriet Meiers, Al Gonzales and the notorious “Brownie.”

It’s okay in conservative circles to argue that FDR deliberately let Pearl Harbor get hit. It’s okay in conservative circles to argue that FDR deliberately sold out Eastern Europe to Stalin at the behest of his Red State Department. It’s okay, among the pundit class, to become a one-man “1939 Truth Commission” like Pat Buchanan, arguing that Hitler had no designs on greater Europe until he was provoked by…uh…Churchill, or something. It’s okay in right-blogosphere circles and on pundit lists to call for rounding up Americans on the basis of their ethnicity, like Michelle Malkin. But a guy who is assigned to develop strategies for Green Energy can’t ever have questioned whether Bush let 9/11 happen. It's a damned shame.

I’m inclined to defend Jones just because the people who are calling for his head are such outrageous, despicable scum. Reason enough. These creeps want an all-out partisan war. Fine.

This can be filed in the truly absurd department, or as Snagglepuss might say "unbelievable, even."

If not for FISA "reform" that gave the telcos retroactive immunity, Edward E. Whitacre Jr. would be in jail - you see, back when Ed's AT&T performed the "warrantless surveillance" for the Bush Administration, it was a felony.

Instead, the Obama administration is awarding him with the General Motors Chairmanship - say what?

When he was running AT&T, he said he didn't use computers or text messaging. Yesterday, he told the press in an interview after his appointment: “I don’t know anything about cars.” It figures. Just what GM and the US auto industry needs.

Ed "Why should they be allowed to use my pipes?" Whitacre is also the same guy that lobbied so heavily against net neutrality, something Obama told us he supported.

Whitacre, it turns out, is just another in the long line of executives running GM who knows next to nothing about cars, going back to Roger Smith, who destroyed the company's pride and global competitiveness in the 1980's - and it's been downhill ever since.

It's a damned shame. I was never a huge GM guy, but one had to respect them, and the cars they made. The American auto industry was a benchmark for the world and the American automobile was a symbol of our culture and the envy of the rest of the world. Buick, Pontiac, Chevrolet, Oldsmobile and Cadillac were all incredible brands with passionately loyal customers. Now, most people are embarrassed to admit they own one of these cars.

The choice of Whitacre for GM is a black eye for the Obama administration and a clear indicator that politics in Washington have not changed. "We the people" are screwed, as usual.

During the campaign, Mr. Obama told us:

"As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen. I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne."

He was responding to the landmark Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which established that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms—not a collective one. Until this case, the Supreme Court never ruled, one way or the other on the matter, and now they have.

Then, after winning, Obama selected outspoken gun control advocate Eric Holder to serve as his attorney general. Throughout his career, Holder has argued in favor of the collective rights interpretation of the Second Amendment. During his confirmation hearings, when asked about this and his support for sweeping and restrictive gun control measures, he reluctantly said "the Supreme Court has spoken" - with a huge smirk on his face.

Such arrogance is bad news. This guy is the law now and clearly intends to ignore the Supreme Court and leading liberal legal scholars on the matter of the Second Amendment as an individual right and continue with his own interpretation of the Bill of Rights in general. Great. Didn't we have enough of such arrogance for the last eight years?

If Democrats interpret this election as a mandate for Democratic policies, they will be in for a surprise.

Before the election was even over, people were already recalling how the Clinton administration's overreach on health care played a large role in a Republican majority in Congress just two years later.

Likewise, those counting out the Republican party and policies as a whole are overstating it. The party may have some real concerns, in particular that younger people, and non-whites, the fastest growing segments of the electorate, are not going their way. At the end of the day, however, things can turn fast. We saw George HW Bush help usher in Clinton, who then sparked a Republican sweep into Congress and eventually George W. Bush, who eventually led to Democrats sweeping back into Congress in 2006 and who played a major part in Barack Obama winning the presidency last night.

However, only dyed in the wool Republicans can rationalize how IRAQ, Guantanamo, Spying on Americans without warrants, or a $9.1 trillion National Debt on their watch is somehow the fault of the Democrats. Just as these election swings toward Democrats were driven in large part by these and other failings attributed to Republicans, the Democrats will be judged not by winning the election, but by how they now govern - if there is to be any "mandate" for the Democrats, it must be earned.

Barack Obama turned a number of red states blue and with that one may argue "mandate" - but if indeed there is a mandate, it is Obama's alone, and not that of the Democratic party, and Nancy Pelosi had better bear that in mind.

The list of intellectual republicans either officially endorsing Barack Obama, or expressing criticism of the McCain campaign keeps growing.

Last week we saw two prominent media conservatives endorse Senator Obama: Michael Smerconish, a radio talk show host, and the novelist Christopher Buckley. Buckley is the son of William Buckley, one of the key founders of the modern conservative movement.

Many of them, like Colen Powell, have cited concerns over McCains choice of Sarah Palin for a running mate.

Peggy Noonan, a former speechwriter for Ronald Reagan, was the first of several conservative pundits to say publicly that she felt betrayed by the choice of Sarah Palin.

Kathleen Parker, another National Review columnist, wrote that Mrs Palin was "clearly out of her league" and should step down as the vice-presidential candidate.

George Will, another influential conservative writer, raised questions about whether Mrs. Palin is qualified to be president and compared the "Palin bubble" to the dotcom and housing bubbles.

David Brooks said Sarah Palin "Represents A Fatal Cancer To The Republican Party" and said she is "absolutely not" ready to be president or vice president.

Lifelong conservative Republican Ken Adelman says he will vote for Obama, adding "Not only is Sarah Palin not close to being acceptable in high office—I would not have hired her for even a mid-level post in the arms-control agency."

Can we point to any prominent democrats endorsing McCain/Palin? What does that tell us?

I'm an NRA member and I support the NRA-ILA because there is nobody else supporting the Second Amendment. I also support the ACLU.

The NRA is a one-issue organization so I suppose it makes sense that they endorese candidates based on that single issue. However, the NRA leaders appear to me to have become too entrenched in partisan politics. They think because members are interested in guns, they must also be on the right on all issues, and in particular, republican.

Even as an NRA member, I can't vote against my economic and social self-interest based on a single issue, especially with all the issues before us.

Colin Powell, President Bush’s former secretary of state and a former chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, said on Meet the Press that he is voting for Obama.

Beyond endorsing Barack Obama, Powell also said, with regard to Sarah Palin, "I don't believe she is ready to be President of the United States, which is the job of the Vice President."



He also said Obama would Be A "Transformational President."

In the meantime, Obama's lead in the polls is shrinking, with some polls showing almost a dead heat.