HERE’S TODAY’S political quiz: Who said the following?
“Both campaigns are making a mistake, and that is they are taking whatever their attacks are and going one step too far. They don’t need to attack each other in this way.”
Was it some senior statesman, some graying commentator tired of the political wars?
No, it was Karl Rove, the creator of the modern political smear campaign. It’s as though Joe Stalin, washing the blood from his hands at the end of the day, paused to comment disparagingly on the excesses of the Holocaust. If Rove says the mud is getting too deep, the campaigns must have sunk out of sight weeks ago.
Both candidates started their campaigns with promises to take the high road. Barack Obama promised a new kind of politics to a country tired of Rove-style knife fights. McCain, whose candidacy in 2000 was destroyed by Rove’s rumor mill, vowed to keep this campaign clean.
But events intervened. McCain was not doing all that well on the high road. Obama looked like he was going to win in a walk. McCain retooled his campaign, seeking advice from — among others — Karl Rove. Presented with the choice of keeping his hands clean or being elected, McCain took a sharp turn off the high road, into the swamp. And it worked. Obama’s lead began to fade.
Obama’s campaign has begun to hit back in kind, but the Democrats, while willing to fight hard, don’t seem to have the stomach for distortion and innuendo that a Rove-style campaign demands. They seem to have brought a rubber knife to this fight.
Why does the voting public stand for this kind of campaign? Because many voters prefer it.
It is easier to vote for a candidate you already like if you allow yourself to be convinced that the opponent is not fit to hold public office. Uncommitted? Then choose the candidate you would most like to have a beer with and swap scurrilous stories about his opponent.
Issues and ideas don’t matter in such a campaign. As Ann McFeatters points out in her column at right, it becomes nothing more than a popularity contest and the winner is the candidate who has the least tar sticking to him on Election Day.
This is not the campaign we hoped for a few months ago, or that the candidates hoped for, but we seem to be stuck with it.
And Karl Rove is shocked, shocked to learn that dirty politics is going on here.
Patrick S. Kelley
Editorial Page Editor
Skeptic (anonymous) says...
Three cheers for Pat Kelley!
September 16, 2008 at 2:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lycomu (anonymous) says...
I'm a little confused. Let me see if I have this straight.....
* If you grow up in Hawaii , raised by your grandparents, you're "exotic, different."
* Grow up in Alaska eating mooseburgers, a quintessential American story.
* If your name is Barack you're a radical, unpatriotic Muslim.
* Name your kids Willow , Trig and Track, you're a maverick.
* Graduate from Harvard law School and you are unstable.
* Attend 5 different small colleges before graduating, you're well grounded.
* If you spend 3 years as a brilliant community organizer, become the first black President of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter registration drive that registers 150,000 new voters, spend 12 years as a Constitutional Law professor, spend 8 years as a State Senator representing a district with over 750,000 people, become chairman of the state Senate's Health and Human Services committee, spend 4 years in the United States Senate representing a state of 13 million people while sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran's Affairs committees, you don't have any real leadership experience.
* If your total resume is: local weather girl, 4 years on the city council and 6 years as the mayor of a town with less than 7,000 people, 20 months as the governor of a state with only 650,000 people, then you're qualified to become the country's second highest ranking executive and next in line behind a man in his eighth decade.
* If you have been married to the same woman for 19 years while raising 2 beautiful daughters, all within Protestant churches, you're not a real Christian.
* If you cheated on your first wife with a rich heiress, and then left your disfigured wife and married the heiress the next month, you're a true Christian.
* If you teach responsible, age appropriate sex education, including the proper use of birth control, you are eroding the fiber of society.
* If, while governor, you staunchly advocate abstinence only, with no other option in sex education in your state's school system while your unwed teen daughter ends up pregnant, you're very responsible.
* If your wife is a Harvard graduate laywer who gave up a position in a prestigious law firm to work for the betterment of her inner city community, then gave that up to raise a family, your family's values don't represent America 's.
* If you're husband is nicknamed "First Dude", with at least one DWI conviction and no college education, who didn't register to vote until age 25 and once was a member of a group that advocated the secession of Alaska from the USA, your family is extremely admirable.
OK, much clearer now.
September 16, 2008 at 3:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
Now we all know that Pat Kelley is an eminently fair man. He'd never resort to tar and feathers, would he? Whoops, I forgot. The bucket of tar sits on the floor, right below his keyboard.
And trust me, the Democrats have every bit as much the stomach for this sort of thing as the Republicans. And so do Pat Kelley and the Gazette staff. After all, it sells copy.
The problem the media has right now is that they can no longer sell themselves as the paragons of virtue and objectivity. All the decrying of negative campaigns they make is hollow.
Does anyone on this forum realistically think that the Gazette is going to endorse John McCain? Does anyone think they aren't going to take any opportunity they can to skewer John McCain or Sarah Palin? You know they will do it, using the cloak of fairness to the aggrieved candidate as cover. They'll talk issues like McCain's "advanced years" and his inability to use the internet. They'll be touting Senator Obama's youth and vitality and his 21st century technology savvy. They certainly won't be touting facts like John's McCain's status as a senate expert on technology issues or the years he spent hanging from the rafters of the Hanoi Hilton that makes the use of his hands and arms often excrutiating.
And, all of that's just fine. The only thing I see wrong with it is that Mr. Kelley seems to think that this fight is really a one way street. Well, it's not. It's been this way since the Republicans announced Sarah Palin.
So, as I see it, the bloodletting has begun and Pat Kelley is every bit as much in the middle of it as Karl Rove.
September 16, 2008 at 3:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lycomu (anonymous) says...
So we should cast our vote for someone who has been running for president for 10 years? someone who has sold his soul and forgone his morals? McCain was a moderate when he ran in 2000. That didnt work so in 2004 he ran as a right leaning moderate. That didnt work, so now he portrays himself as a reagan conservative. He attacks obama with outright lies while maintaining he will not go negative. This is someone who is the bringer of change? Well?
September 16, 2008 at 3:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jayhawker (anonymous) says...
I am amazed that the editor of a fine newspaper would find it unnecessary to base his editorial opinions on fact instead of partisan rhetoric. If you say an untruth enough times, it becomes a truth, apparently. What is the evidence for trying to pin all of this on the Republicans? Are Republicans the only one with a stomach for this and the only ones with real knives? They are inherently evil and Democrats inherently good? I am a very partisan person, but even I am not so naive as to believe that only my side has virtue and the other side only evil.
September 16, 2008 at 3:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Sure, it's a fact, but what does spending years "hanging from the rafters of the Hanoi Hilton that makes the use of his hands and arms often excrutiating." have to do with running for president? Didn't he choose to run? A lot of guys were imprisoned. A lot of guys died.
I am not disparaging his years spent in captivity, but if it hurts to use his hands and arms, why aggravate it by running for president, waving to crowds, and taking all those plane trips and having to go up and down steep steps? Simple answer -- because he wants to be president.
JFK seriously injured his back during WWII after his heroic PT109 experience. Yet, despite what has often been reported as excruciating pain, he chose to run for president too. FDR, who had polio and no use of his legs, practically lived in a wheelchair yet served for four terms.
September 16, 2008 at 6:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Mr. Kelley, if you truly think that Karl Rove invented the political smear machine, then you obviously slept thru every single history class you ever took, and have missed roughly 40+ presidential elections. Only this time I'm too tired to do your homework for you. Look it up yourself.
lycomu, when you mention Obama's voter registration drive, don't forget to mention how he nitpicked over those same rolls to get names thrown off on technicalities so he could run unopposed to win his first election. And don't forget to mention that Joe Biden has been running for president for 20 years, twice as long as McCain.
Create, you make good points about presidents with disabilities, but you missed the point that I believe netloafer was trying to make with that particular statement. Difference is, I doubt that since FDR was in a wheelchair, too many of his opponents tried to smear him saying something along the lines of "he's too lazy to get out of his chair and walk like the rest of us do". So to call McCain computer illiterate because he lets others run it most of the time due to problems with his arms is kindof like complaining that FDR refused to stand up like a man.... Boston Globe article from 2000 that reports that "McCain's severe war injuries prevent him from combing his hair, typing on a keyboard, or tying his shoes." When McCain made the statement referring to himself as "computer illiterate", he said that he relies on his wife for "all the help he can get", not that she does 100% of it for him. He has also stated that he uses the computer "more and more all the time".... (By the way, my mom does email, plays card games, and keeps her checkbook on the computer, but still considers herself a "computer illiterate - and I would have to agree with her honest assessment").... LOL
You nailed it, Observation. The Gazette should not properly be labeled a "newspaper". It is more accurately described as an "opinionpaper", or Democratic propaganda outlet. But, it's a free country, we just gotta deal with it. Just as the Gazette will deal with the consequences of their constant spin, if there are any, in terms of their subscriber numbers. Look what showing both sides of the story has done for Fox News. You'd think people would catch on. But no, BHV (Bush Hatred Virus) has the power to Cloud The Minds Of Men beyond all common sense...... LOL
September 16, 2008 at 10:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
shoehorn (anonymous) says...
I am amused by the commentary entered by lycomu. They seem to be more interested in comparing the Democrats candidate for President to the Republicans candidate for Vice President, at least until we get to the "family issues". Then all of a sudden they no longer choose to continue with that comparison, they switch to comparing the two Presidential candidates. Ain't it amazing how easy it is to cherry pick when it's convenient? I am curious why you didn't compare the two candidates for President straight across the board? Is it because your points would have been lost?
September 16, 2008 at 10:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Just some FYI:
Governor Palin received $256 million in earmarks for Alaska in 2008, and has requested $198 million in earmarks for 2009. Sen Biden has requested $342 million in earmarks for Delaware for 2009. Now, Delaware does have a slightly higher population than Alaska, but has anyone ever compared Alaska & Delaware side-by-side on a map? I would say Alaska definitely owns more natural resources..... more oil, for sure....
Obama requested in $311 million in 2008 for Illinois, $98 million of which was actually approved. The $3.4 million he requested for Biden's lobbyist son was not approved, but the $1 million for his wife's hospital right after she got promoted was.
McCain was one of 5 senators to request ZERO earmarks in 2008.
To borrow a phrase used earlier in this thread,
"who is the bringer of change? Well?"
September 16, 2008 at 11:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jayhawker (anonymous) says...
create: The more I read your posts, the more I think that in your private moments, you are questioning whether you are really a Democrat. I think that you are wondering whether being from Hawaii is enough to continue your allegiance to the Democratic party. After being in Kansas for so long, you have realized that maybe you have become one of us. I think that inside there is a McCain voter. Don't you? If so, I welcome you with open arms. Don't fight it. Just go with it. We are nice people, and we need good people like you to join us. That way, I won't have to cancel your vote. We can join netloafer in electing the next president, you and me. We will be better for having a common sense person like you on our side, with the good advice that you will bring. Tell me that I am wrong, but look me in the eye when you do.
September 17, 2008 at 12:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Jayhawker, I voted for Bush the first term, but not this time. See, that makes me an Independent. Yes, I just know some of you are very nice, just not enough to have my vote.
Open_eyes, I know I sound mean-spirited with regard to McCain's injuries, but I've seen him readjust his hair himself when the wind messed it up. He waves to crowds all the time, and I'm sure his arms must ache as a result of the injuries. But I don't think he means being computer illiterate has anything to do with his injuries. I just think he means he never really learned how to use one. We'll never know until we ask him directly. He is in an age group that did not grow up with computers and would have had to take the time to learn, just like many of us did. I'm glad I learned and wish computers were around when I typed my master's thesis on a typewriter -- shudder! However, here I am now on my fourth computer and I can even troubleshoot. I wonder if he can use an I-Pod or Blackberry or any of those wonder gadgets? Again, we'll have to ask him.
September 17, 2008 at 7:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
John McCain is acknowledged as one of the "go to" senators on issues concerning technology (comm. services, internet, wi-fi, cable, etc.).
I suspect most of us know less about the logistics of cell phones, blackberrys, I-Pods, etc than John McCain, our children or grandchildren. Does that mean we don't understand the value of these tools? Does it mean that we wouldn';t want to explore and expand opportunities in these areas?
I think if we continue we'll get to the real issue for some. It's John McCain's age and a visceral hatred for Sarah Palin. That was the point the Obama campaign was attempting to make with their statements and adds about John McCain's "failure" to learn about the internet. That's why they're looking for clever ways to disguise their contempt for Sarah Palin's "choice." They realize they can't come out directly and say it, so they find subtle ways to make the point.
The reality is that the bloodletting will continue till November. It's going to be bruising, nasty, dirty, etc. And, the Obama campaign, despite its protestations and complaints, has been, and will continue to be, as nasty and dirty as the Republicans. It hasn't been, and won't be, about dignity in the process. That's nothing but a sham. When all is said and done we're going to find out all we ever wanted to know about "troopergate," Tony Rezko, Cindy McCain's money, Joe Biden's lobbyist son, and all the other dirt that can be dug up.
On the surface folks will be saying "Tsk, tsk, we shouldn't run campaigns this way," while applauding the mention of the "first dude's" dui, Sarah Palin's daughter's pregnancy, etc. "Tsk, tsk," indeed.
September 17, 2008 at 8:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Create - I didn't think you sounded mean-spirited, nor did I think that was your intent - I just thought possibly you missed the point that was trying to be made. My apologies if I erred. McCain himself has said that he uses the computer "more and more all the time"....
lycomu, looking back over your post - I noticed you mention that Michelle Obama gave up her job to raise a family. Since she is a vice-president at a hospital, (and got a promotion/raise that nearly doubled her salary when Barack got elected - mustof been about the same time she finally "became proud of her country"), I kinda tend to look at her as a "working mom". Just like Palin.
And you mention Obama sponsored 131 bills. How many of those was he the primary sponsor of, and how many did he just sign to co-sponsor? Given the fact that he has spent half of his Senate career campaigning..... here's a count of how many bills he was the major sponsor of last year that were actually signed into law. ONE. McCain was the major sponsor of only FOUR bills that were signed into law last year. Senators commonly sign their name to many pieces of legislation as co-sponsors - being the main sponsor of a bill is something else.
September 17, 2008 at 8:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Of Obama's time in the senate, he has actually spent 143 days there when the Senate was actually in session. You think he really was the main sponsor of nearly 1 bill a day? Really?
September 17, 2008 at 8:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lycomu (anonymous) says...
Its simple really....if you think the economy is fine, if you think invading iraq was fine, if you think health care is fine, if you think education is fine, if you think america's perception in the world is fine, if you think crying sexism when it applies to your party but not when it applies to the other party is fine, if you think running for president for 19 months is bad but running for president for 10 years is fine, if you think using the wow factor of a female washington outsider to your advantage but fein outrage when her qualifications are questioned is fine, if you think the direction the country is now headed is fine then by all means vote rebuplican
September 17, 2008 at 9:07 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lycomu (anonymous) says...
wow...a giant leap. really old school rheteric...damn commies . thats just too funny
September 17, 2008 at 9:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Wow, giant leap is right. Oh well, at least you're spelling Hussein correctly these days. LOL. Dang! My vote has been cancelled out again. Too much.
September 17, 2008 at 9:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Do you think that Obama can just wave his magic wand and all the economy's ills will go away? How much of our current financial crisis has been brought on by policies started during the Clinton administration? Do you know?
Obama has said that he would actually fly jets into Pakistan, a nuclear-armed country, to hit targets. He also said he supports Bush's small incursions 1 mile in last week (I know you hate to hear that) but that he didn't go far enough. Given Pakistan's response to that, their threats to retaliate, their authorization to fire on US soldiers, do you think that is ok? Pakistan hasn't broken 17 UN resolutions. Smells a little hypocritical to my....
Did you ever check out the link to where Obama himself said a couple years ago he did not have the experience to be President? Before he launched his campaign?
Who cried sexism about the other party? I never saw anything on major media about Hillary being attacked the way Palin is. Sure, she took some flak, but it was a drop in the bucket compared to what Palin is getting hit with. You'd realize that if you watched something besides MSNBC & the Comedy Channel for news.
We don't "feign" outrage when Palin's qualifications are questioned. We'd just like the media to question Obama's in the same way.
September 17, 2008 at 9:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lycomu (anonymous) says...
there is no one single person to blaim for the situation we are in and there is no single person who will get us out of this. and you would know this if you didnt get your news from comic books
September 17, 2008 at 9:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Lots of countries, and not just the Muslim ones, hate the US simply because we're the big kid on the block. And they will hate the next big kid when they come along, whomever that may be, probably China. So I'm not always as concerned with our world approval rating - I'm more concerned that we do what is right. But, since that seems to carry so much weight with some, here is what I would do if elected president that would GUARANTEE us to have one of the highest world approval ratings EVER:
1) Wipe out Israel. That gets us super-high approval from the majority of the worlds muslim population, which amounts to roughly 30%.
2) Drop all opposition to, and actually assist China in taking over Tibet & Taiwan. There's another 1/5 of the worlds population on our side. Which puts us up to 50% approval rating right there.
3) Ok, this one is tricky. India has nearly 1/5 of the worlds population, but 20% of it is Muslim. So, do we side with Pakistan, or India. If we give Kashmir to the Indians, 80% of them will be happy, but we will lose the 30% Muslim approval. If we give it to Pakistan, we lose nearly a billion Indians. Hmmm.... have to do the math on that one and get back to you... whichever gives us the better numbers...
4) To appease all the other countries that hate us, like Chavez, & Mexico, & all the European countries that haven't liked America since long before Bush became president, I propose destroying America. One way will be to give every single person in Mexico an American job, firing Americans whenever it is necessary to make room for them.
Yes, these won't be popular moves with everyone, but they are the minority worldwide. So they don't matter. It's all about the numbers, baby.
There. I've done it. Our approval rating worldwide is probably in the high 70's by now. Enjoy. LOL
September 17, 2008 at 9:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
You've pretty much like to blame everything on Bush. But nobody here has ever said that any one person can fix everything. Not Obama, Biden, McCain, or Palin. What comic book would that be I read that in? Superman Issue #435, or the Fantastic Four #298? Or were you referring to the Comedy channel's the Daily Show?
September 17, 2008 at 9:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lycomu (anonymous) says...
i just wish i had the meds you are on
September 17, 2008 at 9:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Don't worry, once we have socialized medicine, you'll be able to get them easy.... you just might have to wait for months first..... LOL
September 17, 2008 at 10:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lycomu (anonymous) says...
ok open_eyes that was funny. a joke shared..see we are making progress
September 17, 2008 at 10:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
yes, lycomu, we can agree to disagree and even have fun at it :). BTW, I thought the SNL skit of Palin was hilarious - I about cracked my side when she said "And I can see Russia from my house!".... as long as they poke fun both ways, which they have at times - (they gave Obama the pillow :) - in the words of Larry The Cable Guy, "I don't care who you are - now that there's funny!" LOL
September 17, 2008 at 10:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lycomu (anonymous) says...
good stuff indeed. both sides exposed is the best course
September 17, 2008 at 10:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Agreed. Now, if only the Gazette & most of the major media outlets would only follow that same course...... :(
September 17, 2008 at 10:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lycomu (anonymous) says...
observation websters defines lib·er·al·ism
1: the quality or state of being liberal2 aoften capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity b: a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard c: a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties dcapitalized : the principles and policies of a Liberal party
September 17, 2008 at 11:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
So, according to Websters, point b) would seem to say that Republican is the party of liberalism.......
September 17, 2008 at 12:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lycomu (anonymous) says...
Reagan conservatism admirers rarely acknowledge how central Reagan’s ideas are to the market difficulties troubling us today. As the country’s greatest modern champion of deregulation, perhaps Ronald Reagan contributed more to today’s unstable business climate than any other American. His long-standing campaign against the role of government in American life, a crusade he often stretched to extremes, produced conditions that ultimately proved bad for business.
The main problem with Reagan’s outlook was a failure to recognize that government regulation can serve business interests quite effectively. Many of the regulatory programs started by Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal in the 1930s aimed to promote fairness in economic competition. That legislation required greater transparency so that investors could more intelligently judge the value of securities in the stock market. The reforms mandated a separation of commercial and investment bank activities, since speculative investments by commercial banks had been one of the principal causes of the financial crash. Roosevelt’s New Deal also created a bank insurance program, the FDIC, which brought stability to a finance industry that had been on the verge of collapse.
These and other improvements of the 1930s worked splendidly. For the next half century American markets operated with impressive stability. There were periods of boom and recession, but the country’s financial system did not suffer from the kinds of shocks that have upset the American economy in recent years.
The turn away from rules that promote fair business practices fostered dangerous risk-taking. An early sign of the troubles occurred on Reagan’s watch. When the requirements for managing savings and loan institutions became lax in the 1980s, leaders of those organizations invested money recklessly. Many institutions failed or came close to failure, and the cleanup cost more than $150 billion. Yet blame for that crisis did not stick to the Teflon President.
Reagan deserves credit for serving as a vigorous defender of free markets, but he carried the idea to extremes. Ironically , the great champion of business enterprise advocated policies that have seriously hurt business here and abroad.
September 17, 2008 at 1:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Economies are so intertwined and complex nowadays, it is often difficult to single out specific times & policies which contribute to problems. Take the current financial mortgage crisis, for example - lycomu attributes it to Reagan. However, many in the financial industry point to other factors: Such as 1997 Tax Relief Act signed by Bill Clinton (sponsored by Republicans in both houses) with overwhelming bipartisan support. This law allowed all of us to take a tax free capital gain up to a half million dollars on homes sold. You can also point to the Clinton repeal of Glass-Steagall, and the Community Reinvestment Act of 1995, which basically nearly made it a crime if you didn't loan to poor-risks. Many financial insiders are now saying that the Glass-Steagall act may be what we need to put back into place. So there's plenty of blame to go around. And there's plenty of fingers being pointed, too many articles to list here.
However, you would think that since 3 of Obama's top 4 contributors are Goldman-Sachs, J.P Morgan, and Citigroup, and was also the 3rd-highest recipient of Fannie Mae money, that he would be able to straighten this mess out - LOL
By the way, anyone catch the news that ACORN, (who Obama worked as a community organizer for) - yes, the same ACORN that has engaged in widespread voter fraud in many swing states (with some of their employees being convicted) was again just recently accused in the Detroit Free Press of engaging in such activity in Michigan?
September 17, 2008 at 2:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Nowadays the economy is so complex and intertwined that it is difficult at times to point to specific things or policies which cause problems. Today's current mortgage meltdown is a prime example. While lycomu attributes it to Reagan, many economic experts differ from that point of view. They point to Clinton's repeal of Glass-Steagall as a major contributor to the current financial meltdown, and the Community Reinvestment act which basically made it nearly a crime to not loan to poor-risks. But mostly do some research on Clinton's repeal of Glass-Steagall. It's an eye-opener. Yes, we went great guns for awhile after these laws were passed, but now we are paying the price.
You'd think that since 3 of Obama's top 4 contributors are Goldman-Sachs, JP Morgan, and Citigroup, and he's also the 3rd-highest recipient of Fannie Mae money, that he would know how to get us out of this mess - LOL
By the way, anyone catch the latest news about ACORN? You know, the ACORN that Obama worked as community organizer for in both NYC and Chicago? Yes, the same ACORN that has engaged in widespread voter fraud in many swing states (with some of their employees being convicted) - they were just recently accused in the Detroit Free Press of engaging in such activity again in Michigan.....
September 17, 2008 at 2:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Sorry, my computer hickupped - didn't mean to post twice - retyped it the 2nd time..... hence the small differences.... dang, I must be computer illiterate... LOL
September 17, 2008 at 2:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lycomu (anonymous) says...
and seven top advisors on mccains staff are washington lobbists. we could go on and on. this election will be no different than the others. most people will vote based on emotion rather than intellect. so we elect who we elect, we complain if our canidate lost, celebrate when ours wins. on and on and on. it is difficult to have public discourse based on emotions. the only common ground is or should be whats best for our country...that being said, emotions will win in the end. you can frighten, lie, cajole, urge, plead, and even beg but in the end people will vote based more on emotion than on rational thought
September 17, 2008 at 3:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jayhawker (anonymous) says...
lycomu: On a related issue, brought up by your implicit criticism of lobbyist, is the schizophrenic situation with the Kansas Democratic Party this election. The top of their ticket has a candidate (Obama) who has made a major cornerstone of his campaign criticism of Washington lobbyist, yet, the candidate in the second position on their ticket (Jim Slattery running for the US Senate), is a Washington lobbyist. I wonder how they keep a straight face when those, like Governor Sebelius, hit the campaign trail for both.
September 17, 2008 at 3:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lycomu (anonymous) says...
as an independant, i see no conflict. i never once said i was a democrat. i mearly am a obama supporter
September 17, 2008 at 3:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Now there's something we can agree on, many people will vote on emotion, not intellect. If who I vote for loses this election, I can tell you one thing: Regardless of whether I agree with the policies, he will be the US President, and therefore he will be MY president for the next 4 years. I will hope and pray that things work out better than I currently think they will. If they do, I may even vote for him next election. If not, I will look elsewhere.
One thing I will NOT do is threaten to move to a foreign country, threaten to hold my breath, and resort to bed-wetting like so many of our wonderful Hollywood elite do.... LOL
September 17, 2008 at 3:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lycomu (anonymous) says...
i too agree with your comments. interesting. hollywoods types, mostly liberal tend to tree hugging hang wringing and industry tycoon types mostly conservative go for doom and gloom and loss of america as we know it. i do know this, if we dont get there together, we just arent going to get there at all
September 17, 2008 at 3:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Now THERE'S the wisest statement I've seen in a long time.
Amen, brother (or sister), amen.
September 17, 2008 at 3:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lycomu (anonymous) says...
and peace to you and yours
September 17, 2008 at 4:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jayhawker (anonymous) says...
" . . .the Democrats, while willing to fight hard, don’t seem to have the stomach for distortion and innuendo that a Rove-style campaign demands. They seem to have brought a rubber knife to this fight" says Pat Kelley in the editorial. I just heard that Democratic websites and publications published Sarah Palin's email that was stolen by a hacker getting into her email account. It included email from both the in box and the sent box. Rubber knives? No stomach for a dirty fight? Pat Kelley will be shocked, shocked to know that the Democrats are practicing dirty politics.
September 17, 2008 at 7:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
USNretired (anonymous) says...
What a load of crap got posted here! Guess I am too well informed to buy into some of it, and have too much common sense for a lot else. I seriously doubt any thinking person will be persuaded by sophomoric repetition of non-facts as facts. You know who is shoveling what so I will end here.
September 17, 2008 at 7:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
The real test will be to see what is done about them hacking Palin's email, since it is a felony.
September 17, 2008 at 8:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
USNretired, you'd be surprised how many non-thinking people there are, who buy into whatever fits their pre-conceived notions of what they want to hear.
September 17, 2008 at 8:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
USNretired (anonymous) says...
Roger that open_eyes.
September 17, 2008 at 8:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jayhawker (anonymous) says...
lycomu: In a post above, you stated to open_eyes that "there is no one single person to blaim (sic) for the situation we are in and there is no single person who will get us out of this. and you would know this if you didnt (sic) get your news from comic books." I'm pretty sure that you're wrong about the comic books as open_eyes' news source. He doesn't seem like the kind of person to watch MSNBC (or CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS or CNBC)..
September 17, 2008 at 8:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jayhawker (anonymous) says...
The more I think about Pat's editorial, the more amused I become. Apparently he didn't hear about the lies, smears, distortions and half truths that were spread all over about Sarah Palin, which continue on and on. Only a nonthinking partisan, or an agent of a campaign, would actually say that only his side doesn't "have the stomach" for negative campaigning. Come on, Pat. How old are you? We are talking about politicians in the middle of an election. This stuff happens every two years, by both sides equally, including Democrats. Pat's editorials seem to get less and less relevant to an honest discussion of any issues. Maybe he is getting close to retirement. The good news is that he has laid a foundation showing his true colors so that when he endorses Democratic candidates like Obama, Slattery, et. al, next month, they will have less than the small effect that they usually have.
September 17, 2008 at 9:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
jayhawker, I do watch some segments of CNN, but I only watch MSNBC when the Cartoon Network is showing commercials, that way it's pretty seamless to switch back to Spongebob once the commrcial is over - Olbermann does a fair impersonation of Patrick Starfish when he's angry - LOL
September 17, 2008 at 9:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Actually, I meant Headline News, not CNN occasionally. They're right next to each other on my cable. I must be Cable TV illiterate.
September 17, 2008 at 11:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
glarson (anonymous) says...
Time to move it over to forums:
http://www.emporiagazette.com/forums/...
September 18, 2008 at 6:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )