Does it bother anyone else that the Andrew Breitbart, who brought such things as the ACORN fiasco into the light and had recently announced that he would be releasing information from Obama's college days that would be difficult/impossible to defend in the upcoming election died at age 43 recently, totally unexpected and supposedly from "...natural causes" on the eve of the release?
http://realityfail.com/2012/03/whist...itbarts-death/

I agree, lame duck presidents in second terms have a lot more flexibility without fear of political fallout, but given the track record we've seen in the past three years I'm honestly not sure that our country, as we know it today, will survive through 2016, or that we will ever be able to recover from the economic and world political situation that results from a second term which will likely be worse than the first. Look at the political cartoons from outside the US to see how the US is perceived by others in the world today and then ask youself why our press chooses to paint a different picture in our news and political comentary. Our administration has no concept of how business really works. They believe that they can simply mandate "change", and it will happen. Meeting resistance to health care and contraceptive benefits?? We'll simply give it away and tell the insurance companies that they must pay for it - they won't care, and they've got lots of money, right? Want better gas mileage?? We'll tell Detroit to magically make it happen, and they can pay for that too, right? We got the Chevy Volt from such a federal mandate, declaring that Detroit must market alternative fuel vehicles. Alternative Energy?? Solyndra, which had no viable product line, proven technology or business plan received $535MM in loan guarantees to shift the US away from fossil fuels and nuclear power generation. The fact is, I cannot come up with one example of a positive "change" made in the past three years. and that was the battle cry in 2008. Am I missing something?