Mr. or Ms. or Miss or Mrs. Liberty (maybe you're not at liberty to say?), Your first sentence says a lot. I've always viewed inauguration day as a new beginning, regardless of who was sworn in. Believe me when I say that nothing gave me more pain then seeing W sworn in for a second term. But my attitude has always been "let's see what the person does." To my chagrin, W pretty much did what I thought he would do. On the other hand, Gov .Christie showed us leadership that we haven't seen on a state level for decades. Bully? Maybe. Cares about our state? Very much so, and that's what counts. So, be sad if you want to be, but for most of the country it was a very happy day indeed!

President Barack Obama - 332 Electoral College Votes

Last seen pumping his own gas with disheveled hair Mitt Romney - 206 Electoral College Votes

Most Electoral votes won by "W" - 286.

Get over it!
...

Mr. Nedd, I think that the President’s victory speaks for itself—the numbers are moot. Mr. Romney will become a political footnote, but it’s time to begin acting as a republic again. Divisiveness, name-calling, and old perceptions need to be discarded. The next four years present an opportunity to do just that. The urgency is readily apparent, but the will isn’t as much. That has to change.

Joseph,

With all due respect, I don't need a lecture from you or anyone as how I should express my sentiments regarding the President’s reelection, as I have earned the right to express my opinion. In this case, I chose to use figures to express the magnitude of the President's win over his now forgotten GOP opponent.

Perhaps, when I see the GOP leadership treating the President with the respect his office deserves, I’ll reconsider my sentiments towards them and the losers they choose to nominate for president.

Mr. Nedd, Far be it from me to lecture anyone on how to express themselves. Like you, I was a political candidate and like you (I’m sure), was “lectured” on what would work, what was correct to say, what was appropriate, etc., and like you, I spoke in my own voice, and made my own decisions. The point of my response involved moving forward. To do that, we have to get beyond divisive rhetoric and biased assumptions, and move toward a new America.

Three quick points:

1. While I was a candidate twice, I had the privilege of actually serving as an elected official after one of my candidacies.

2. I don't speak to or reference "biased assumptions", I deal with facts and the consequences that result. (e.g., Nate Silver)

3. I am not looking for a "new" America. The current one with all its pros and cons suits me just fine.

Mr Nedd,

1. I have never had the privilege of serving, but look forward to such in the future. I voted for you when you ran (successfully) as an independent and (unsuccessfully) as a Democrat. I wish I had some of your advice when I ran as a Democrat, but pursuing such was discouraged.

2. The biased assumptions I refer to are held by both sides, and on many levels. While you pride yourself on facts and consequences, many do not. They act out of fear and accept preconceived philosophies.

3. A new America is definitely needed. The one that suits you “just fine” is an unsustainable.

Mr. Keyes (and Mr. Obama), Please note that the terms "forging ahead", "moving forward", and "moving toward a new America" are all figurative terms which sound nice but have absolutely no tangible meaning. In other words, they are 100% useless terms. If there is one certainty, it is change. Things change every day, everywhere. In fact, it's a law of physics. So every day, we already wake up to a "new America" that is substantially different from the one we had yesterday, in a virtually infinite number of ways. Yet one thing does remain constant - we are a nation of people, human beings, each with his/her own agenda, morals, goals, objectives, principles and values. If we all follow the same set of rules, everybody is (theoretically) (reasonably) happy. When someone starts deciding to ignore the rules, there is a branch of the government that is supposed to identify them, stop them, and punish them appropriately. When times get tough, lots more people start breaking the rules. That's where we are today. And the trend is going in the wrong direction. Giving free handouts to the people who are having a tough time is not a viable, sustainable solution. Providing an environment (i.e. a business climate) in which those people can find and take advantage of opportunities to become productive members of society under their own power IS a sustainable solution. Not only that, it makes for a happier populace, which will ultimately reduce the frequency of "rule breaking" going on.

Not Domino, please tell Domino that both of your commentaries are very important and both contribute much to Patch discussions. I wish you would emerge from anonymity and bring take ownership of your dialogue.

Hookerman, like you, I can only guess as to why W missed the inauguration and have to accept the reason you cited at face value. Still, we are a nation that celebrates our peaceful transitions of executive power and shows that to the world by including ex-presidents My own opinion is that since his leaving office, W has kept a low profile on advice from his political advisors and we all would be best served if he continues to do so.

Mr./Ms./Mrs./Miss (whatever) Liberty, Who’s talking about socialist countries? I brought up Christie as an example of how my prejudicial assumptions were overridden by his actions esp. during Sandy. Back on topic, every inauguration presents new possibilities, new agendas, and new ideas and that is why I’m happy with this president’s inauguration. You can continue to be as sad as you want or decide to face reality and get involved and present something positive, maybe even proactive?

Joe Keys, you're a hypocrite, Obama is GWB's fourth term. More people have died under Obama in four years than under Bush in 8. Obama has renewed the patriot act, and is spending your grand children's future on entitlements, where's the outrage?

Jerry,

Try including the three thousand plus Americans who lost their lives on 9/11, which was on GWB's watch, and your statement doesn't hold water.

Mr. Gordon, I can’t even pretend to understand your comments in relation to my original blog. I assume it’s some sort of visceral, preprogrammed response to any remark involving Obama, health care, human rights, or anything you perceive as not “one of ours.”
BTW, my name is KEYES and I’m not a hypocrite (what ever brought you to the conclusion that I was?)

Nedd,That's because Clinton turned down the arrest and capture of Bin Laden in Yemen in 1996..

Joe keys, Of course you can't begin to comprehend my comments because it would take moderate amount intellectual honesty, which you couldn't bear.

Your blind support this president and your HATRED of the former president makes you a hypocrite. Thank God for the patriots in this country that have not been taken in by this president.

Jerry gordn, Even as your comments become ever more erratic and continue to beg for a point to be made, I can only assure you that I have no hatred for anyone. Thank God for that!

More BS from "Liberty".

According to Politico:

"An inaugural official told reporters that "at least" 1 million people were on the National Mall for President Obama's swearing-in ceremony. If the figure is accurate, a crowd of around 1 million would put attendance at about 55 percent of the 2009 crowd. The city of Washington, D.C., estimated that 1.8 million people packed the Mall last time to watch Obama get sworn in for his first term. Washington, D.C.'s, Metro system reported that ridership was about 63 percent of 2009's record-shattering Inauguration Day. Still, a turnout of around 1 million would still put Obama's second inaugural in the top tier of Inauguration Day celebrations in terms of attendance. At his second swearing-in, former President George W. Bush drew as many as 400,000 — up from the estimated 300,000 he drew in 2001. Bill Clinton attracted a crowd of 800,000 in 1993. Before Obama, the previous record was the 1.2 million people gathered to see Lyndon B. Johnson's Inauguration in 1965."

Bottom Line: If those who chose not to attend this year are "unhappy", what's GWB's excuse of not getting them ever to show up?

@ mrwilson (yet another "moniker by LV's most famous violent assaulter):

1. We have a Township Committee in Washington Township, not a "Long Valley Council".

2. My vote total increase by over 700 votes in my second election, despite my decision to align with the Democrats.

3. My run for reelection as a Democrat in a township where McCain defeated the President by a 68 to 32 margin had more to do in a loss where I actually outperformed the President. While he’s no Nate Silver, Long Valley's own Eric Frenchman made this observation in his election wrap up.

mrwilson, thanks for your compliment. Speaking from experience, I have to explain that anyone seeking public office opens himself or herself to a new world of scrutiny. Mr. Nedd was no exception. Why does someone seek office? That is as complex as the person who does such. More of us should make the effort. The worst that can happen is you make new friends—or have to move to Hawaii (just kidding, Mr. Nedd!)

The reason that Obama's numbers were so high in 2009 is because it was the first time in the history of the U.S. that an African American was sworn in as President. A once in a lifetime historical event tends to draw people.

A first grader could figure out the reason the President's numbers were higher in 2009 was due the historical nature of attending the inauguration of the first black POTUS. I personally witness people who traveled across the country and from around the world to attend such a historic event. The President's second inaugural could not have possibly carried the same historical importance.

However, the President still managed to quadruple GWB's. Enough said.

You are aware a majority of those on food stamps come from red states?

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-09-26/red-blue-states-income-economy/57846600/1

More like Democrats deserved a day off from having to subsidize GOP types who Mitt and Paul classified as "takers".

I'm not sure if there is precedent/protocol where the losing presidential candidate is obligated to attend. I most cases, this person typically already has a significant role in government where their attendace would be expected. The fact Mitt has no such role, makes it easy to give him a pass. In any event, it has to be painful for any loser to attend and wonder "what if?"

Governor Romney lost the election and is now a footnote in history. His lack of presence at the inauguration is irrelevant.