Posted by vankamp (anonymous) on October 15, 2008 at 3:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

On the same note, you should not just vote for a person because he is the same color as you.

Posted by momus (anonymous) on October 15, 2008 at 4:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes, white people voting for McCain just because he's also white... What are they thinking ;)

Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on October 15, 2008 at 4:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

A recent poll shows 96% of blacks in the US will be voting for Obama. No racial bias there.

Posted by create (anonymous) on October 15, 2008 at 4:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Good article, Cathy Harding, and something that needed to be said. Just today I ran into a person I know who saw the Obama button on my jacket. She said, "You're voting for a Muslim?" I asked her if she had been living under a rock. Geez, I am so sick of stupid people.

Posted by vankamp (anonymous) on October 15, 2008 at 4:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Your last sentence is the reason I'm not voting for Obama.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on October 15, 2008 at 4:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

96%? please could you post your source sir? I have yet to see one that high.

Posted by equalrights (anonymous) on October 15, 2008 at 5 p.m. (Suggest removal)

what is the percent of white people voting for a white person? You shouldn't throw racial statistics unless you look at all sides.

Posted by momus (anonymous) on October 15, 2008 at 5:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

100% of black voters voted for a white male during the last Presidential election (and every election that they could vote before the last election). How's that for a stat!

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on October 15, 2008 at 5:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

vankamp
If your comment was aimed at create:

Are you really that dense? If more people would educate themselves instead of blindly voting down the ticket we would be in a lot better shape as a nation. Information flows so very easily these days I really fail to see how people cannot do even a little bit of research and fact finding about EACH candidate then make an educated decision.

If it was aimed at harding:

Define qualification and how is one really supposed to gain said experience? The presidency is the most powerful office in the world, how do you really qualify for that? I think it is more of a matter of picking someone who has the fundamentals and the people behind him to make it happen. But to each his own.

Bottom line, harding brings up some great points, well done ma'am.

Posted by Deepthoughts (anonymous) on October 15, 2008 at 5:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Funny, I think the same thing create every time I see an Obama sign in someone's yard.

Personally Cathy, I would like to see someone like myself in office - an intelligent person with my values and morals and frugal side (I'm not saying I could do the job, but those are qualities I would hope the individual would have), so I guess it only makes sense that people would vote for someone similar to themselves. Perhaps you read a little too much into the "soccer mom" thing.

I'm a hard worker and was taught work ethic from a very young age, so I guess you can understand why I have a hard time voting for someone who has socialistic values. Sorry, but I do not feel like working my butt off, so other people can sit on theirs all day long eating bon bons and living off the government checks. Not the way I was raised and I will never agree with Socialism.

Posted by momus (anonymous) on October 15, 2008 at 5:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So, you don't agree with the McCain's (and Obama's) socialist bank bail out? Or with the frugal 5 trillion dollars in additional debt we've accumulated under a GOP administration this past eight years? How does McCain more suit your morals than Obama?

I don't think that anyone wants money going towards people eating Bon Bons (isn't that what AIG did on their trip after the bail out?), but government is sometimes needed to do the things that the free market can't, won't or shouldn't do. I don't think that is socialism (although I understand why the GOP is throwing around that "scary" word). But, maybe that's just me.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on October 15, 2008 at 6:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Cathy, you do bring up some valid points, but I would like to answer one question your posed:

"When have these types of personal associations become more important than knowledge and ability?"

Oh, I'd say around 1789, or thereabouts. There have always been, are now, and always will be people who vote on things besides knowledge and ability. I remember hearing some women who voted for Edwards in 2004 because he had really nice hair.....

Information IS more readily accessable and flows easier now, but that can be a 2-way street. There may have been more ignorant voters in times past, who voted more on personal associations, but we KNOW of more now, because of the ease and instantaneousness (real word?) of available information. There might have been a huge bunch of idiots clamoring about the same things you've listed in past elections, but it just took the Pony Express too long for the rest of us to find out about it...... LOL

It sounds like you're basing alot of your perception on "you betcha" and "gosh darn" - so I fail to see, exactly, how you are any different from those you complain about in your article? You talk about concentrating on issues and knowledge, not personality and "likeableness" in your article, then you turn a 180 and say you don't like this person because of the way they talk???? Do yourself a favor - do a little historical research on the accents and historical mannerisms of many of our previous presidents - you might be surprised. Maybe even "gotcha"......

momus, are you 100% certain that "100% of black voters voted for a white male during the last Presidential election (and every election that they could vote before the last election)."??? Is it possible any of them voted for a write-in candidate, who was not a white male? Ok, just nitpicking for fun.... :)

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on October 15, 2008 at 6:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I honestly cannot ever remember an election that I didn't hear somebody personally say that they did or didn't like this or that candidate (both parties), and would vote accordingly, based on some silly non-important attribute. If this article said something along the lines of "once again, voters are...." I would understand - and, it is a very valid point to be discussed - but inferring that it just started is about like me coming back from the grocery store and asking "when did they start putting milk in plastic jugs?"

Sarah Palin is, from all accounts I have heard, (except from the far-left) - an extrememly intelligent, sharp and witty person. Just like Obama. I bet Obama has close friends that he could "go drink a beer with". So, I presume, that those close friends should NOT vote for Obama. EVERYBODY is just like SOMEBODY (except me, I'm one of a kind! ) To base a person's ability on whether or not they say "gosh darn" and "you betcha" (I do) seems to me like stereotyping. (Bill Gates never finished college, therefore he is dumb). I'm curious - what other groups do you stereotype in the same way?

Are you saying we shoud all vote for someone that we CAN'T relate to? Where is the sense in that???? Exactly how do you know that Palin is not "better than you" - she has an 80% approval rating as governor, can alot of people that are "better than you" say that? Is it just because she says "you betcha"? Is that the new qualification for intelligence and success? Are you alot better than Bill Gates since he's a college dropout? After reading this, sounds to me like someone has their nose a bit too high in the air....

I think I am VERY qualified to be president, or vice president. Hell, I think my CAT is more qualified than some of the people we have in Congress right now.... I would at least have the good sense to know that if I was fighting to get banks to loan to people who couldn't afford it, sooner or later SOMEBODY was going to have to pay the bill.... which brings me to your last statement about Bush. It is extremely obvious you do not have a very good understanding about the many factors that have gotten us into the current financial crisis, and are especially ignorant of some of the chief ones...

Posted by USNretired (anonymous) on October 15, 2008 at 7:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Professional Politicians, what a concept! I have searched quite a bit, but I cannot find hard data to back up a lot of what the leftys are shoveling on this website. I have had network access since the mil-net and DARPA-net were the only ones that existed and MOSAIC was the only usable GUI. I know how to search so I am beginning to think there are no hard facts to back up these bogus claims as to Obama's superiority. The media backs him so he will get a lot of votes, as the media darlings always do. I found quite a bit on McCain and Biden. Too bad they are not running mates.

Posted by Observation (anonymous) on October 15, 2008 at 8:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't like the way the Democrats Biden/ Obama administration wantabes are taking away our ability to be patriotic. They first say that paying taxes is the way to show our patriotism. Then they turn around and tell us that they plan to cut taxes on everyone who earns less than $250,000.00. Folks like me won’t even have a chance to show our patriotism. Gosh darn, I deserve to be able to show my patriotism just as much as the rich guy. I think that maybe they are purposely trying to put patriotism on the low end of important things. Or maybe they will GIVE me a portion of someone else’s earnings and that will be considered patriotic too.

Posted by kseyetie (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 7:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Machine Gun John blew his last chance last night. This will be closer than some imagine, but the R's (unless they can cook the books again in Ohio) are probably going to lose this one.

Posted by Deepthoughts (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 7:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Well I heard Obama say that he didn't think anyone should make over $100,000 because then that person was taking money away from others. Does that sound like Socialism?!

I don't make $100,000, but you better believe that if I worked my butt off and was able to make that much through my hard work or by being an entrepreneur and starting my own company, I think I deserve it, and I would think others should have that as well. Just because I'm making less than that does not mean I would think I DESERVE to make equal to someone who works harder than me or takes more risks. Salary is kinda like grades in school - you should get what you EARN. Granted there are people who have a lot of money who didn't earn it themselves (because I know someone will bring that up), but that doesn't mean that I think or anyone should think that they deserve part of that person's inheritance, winnings, etc.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 8:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Who exactly is it that is "cooking the books" in lets see, something like 12 states right now around the country? And who have they openly endorsed, even though they are a tax-exempt non-partisan group? How many of their employees have already been convicted of voter fraud? Who exactly is it that tried to get the military vote thrown out of Florida in 2000? (Yeah, like if anyone deserves NOT to vote, it's our military).

Any evidence to back up what you say, or is it just another "Obama is a Muslim terrorist" type of uneducated, emotional, idiotic rant? (Which, of course, editorials here tell us only Republicans are capable of, therefore, it is obvious you are a Republican)...

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 9:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey kseyetie, are these the "facts" that you were looking for about the GOP "cooking the books"?

"The American Center for Voting Rights Legislative Fund today released the most comprehensive and authoritative review of the facts surrounding allegations of vote fraud, intimidation and suppression made during the 2004 presidential election."

The ACVR Legislative Fund report, "Vote Fraud, Intimidation & Suppression In The 2004 Presidential Election," finds that while Democrats routinely accuse Republicans of voter intimidation and suppression, neither party has a clean record on the issue. The report finds that paid Democrat operatives were far more involved in voter intimidation and suppression activities than were their Republican counterparts during the 2004 presidential election.

Or you can read about what actually went on in Ohio behind the scenes at

http://www.yuricareport.com/Strategies_P...

Or, maybe, since I know you won't read any of these links, I'll just put up another one from CNS:

Report: More Democrat than Republican Operatives Involved in Voter Fraud
CNS News
By: Melanie Hunter
08/02/05

A report by a voting rights group regarding allegations of voter fraud, intimidation and suppression during the 2004 presidential election has found that "paid Democrat operatives were far more involved in voter intimidation and suppression activities than were their Republican counterparts during the 2004 presidential election."

The report by the American Center for Voting Rights Legislative Fund found that thousands "were disenfranchised by illegal votes cast and a coordinated effort by members of certain 'nonpartisan' organizations to rig the election system through voter registration fraud in more than a dozen states."

For example, the report noted, paid Democrat operatives were charged with slashing tires on Republican get-out-the-vote vans in Milwaukee, and an Ohio court order stopped Democrat operatives from calling voters and telling them the incorrect date for election and polling place information.

The report also found that a law enforcement task force found "clear evidence of fraud in the Nov. 2 election in Milwaukee" that included hundreds of felons, voters that voted twice, and even thousands more ballots that were cast than actual voters recorded as having voted in the city.

The task force also found multiple indictments and convictions of ACORN workers for voter registration fraud in several states......

"Until political parties and candidates are willing to adopt a zero-tolerance policy towards election fraud, the American public will have little confidence in other reforms," Brian Lunde, ACVR Legislative Fund board member, said in a statement. "There is no room for politics when it comes to the right to vote."

Posted by acricket (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 11:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well we don't have to worry about our militay getting to vote, they haven't even been sent ballots yet and it takes 30 days to get them sent there and another 30 to get them back. So much for everyone getting to vote this time around.

Posted by YaHooSis48 (anonymous) on October 19, 2008 at 8:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Openeyes, I don't know who you are, but if you'll run, I'll vote for you as you sound informed, intelligent,well spoken and like a person with principle,morals and integrity. Sarah Palin also appears to have these principles to the best of my ability to know and judge her. She appears hard working, has a solid relationship with her spouse, and her home seems in order as much as anyone else's if not more. Her intelligence is obvious and it is amazing that her approval rate is so high in Alaska. Could it be that the people wanted a change from all of the "business as usual" going on in her state. Just like all of us want a CHANGE FROM BUSINESS AS USUAL in the White House. I personally would like to see the favors, and good ole boy back rubbing stopped! We need strong leadership surronded by trusted people w/ good old fashioned morals.

Posted by momus (anonymous) on October 19, 2008 at 10:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yahoo,

Aren't you the same person that said: "Obama was sworn in on the Quran for his current office and he refuses to pledge alliegiance to the United States or put his hand over his heart when the National Anthem is played! The Muslims have said they will destroy us from within. Hello! Having a Muslim president would seem to fit the bill!"

I think that your infatuation with Palin and "morals" has less to do with the McCain campaign and more to do with some bad information you received with a touch of xenophobia and religious intolerance mixed in. Obama is a Christian, and a good chunk of his family is from right down the road in El Dorado. As far as intelligence is concerned, I'll take his degree from Harvard over a former sports news show anchor any day. It's obvious that you have disdain for Obama, and given previous posts, it's also obvious why.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on October 20, 2008 at 9:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It was a different Congressman that was sworn into office on the Quran, NOT Obama.

I don't think anyone should vote for someone just because they have the most impressive degree. Bush had a higher GPA at the same school than Kerry did. I think Gates has done a pretty good job with Microsoft despite his lack of a college degree. Intelligence is not always something measured by the esteem of a particular diploma, as alot of high-nose-in-the-air people would like us to believe. Sure, our leaders need to be intelligent and smooth talkers, but they also need alot of other qualities which are not always easily quantified. Like many others, I take substance over style any day.

Posted by YaHooSis48 (anonymous) on October 20, 2008 at 6:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ok, I do very much disdain Obama; especially the facts that relay to his previous and constant questionable relationships w/radical persons,preachers, etc in his life. Also the very fact that he no experience doing anything. He is an empty suit that I believe has been groomed for sometime to slip into this position in history. I truly do believe that he and his wife must hate/disdain if you please/ the white race; otherwise they could have never sat in the church they sat in for 20 years. I personally cannot believe that more people are not questioning where this guy came from and his connections. I am so sorry, would you like to tell me why I dislike Obama??? I graduated from Highland Park High School in Topeka,KS and I know some really,really nice black people as I also know and count as friends some extemely educated black people. I don't know what color you are, but I think I know the condition of your soul and your heart and that is not a pretty picture. And as my mamma would have said, "you're just plain old fashioned rude".

Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 9:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

While I hate the source of this information and the spin they put on it, it is the numbers and the facts in this link that are relevant. I don't know any soccer/hockey moms that shop like this. I have a hard time thinking of anyone who spends like Sarah Palin. What is the matter, are her govenor's clothes not good enough. I wish my employer would take me on a shopping spree.

How can this republican ticket constantly tout that they are looking out for the common American and they are in touch with the middle class, and in the same breath behave like this. To top it all off they do a little back peddle and say, oh we were going to give them to charity afterward. Unbelievable.

http://www.alan.com/2008/10/21/and-repub...

Not to mention the longtime socialist policies under Gov. Palin. a $1200 rebate to all Alaskans based on oil company wind fall profit taxes. Not to mention the $2000 Alaskans have bee getting for years from energy revenues. Sounds alot like a "redistribution of wealth" and a little "spreading it around", but I guess if Obama didn't say or do it its not socialism. McCain/Palin is paper thin in substance at best.

Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on October 22, 2008 at 9:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

YaHoo--
You said, "I graduated from Highland Park High School in Topeka,KS and I know some really,really nice black people as I also know and count as friends some extemely educated black people"

I think that is on page one of the closet racist's playbook. Its the old I can't be a racist, I have black friends. It sounds to me like you are afraid of being led by someone who does not look or believe like you. I am not saying you are a racist, but maybe a little xenophobic or perhaps ethnocentric is a better term since Obama in not from another country.