Posted by glarson (Gwen Larson) on August 9, 2008 at 7:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

More comment on the original editorial:

http://www.emporiagazette.com/news/2008/...

Posted by billclinton (anonymous) on August 9, 2008 at 12:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The poor congress approval rating has as much to do with the Democrats as it does with the Republicans and their president.

I hope we all understand that a simple majority in congress does not ensure anything will be passed. Especially with a lame duck president that could care less.

Posted by billclinton (anonymous) on August 9, 2008 at 12:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The low approval rating is more of a reflection on US politics in general than it is the Democrats. I would much rather have a stalemate in congress right now than a Republican controlled, spending, warmongering, sex-scandal fiasco.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on August 10, 2008 at 11:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thx, jayhawker. For the record, I'm not overly impressed with EITHER party in Congress these days, (or politicians in general, for that matter) - however, I am rather ticked at Pelosi's latest little stunt of turning out the lights and refusing to allow the Republicans to be heard, or to have an up/down vote. What was it we heard from the Democrats in the last 2 Presidential elections, "let every vote count", or something to that effect? In case anyone does not know what Pelosi "stunt" I'm referring to, it's probably because you think Fox News is biased, and refuse to watch it - and instead, only watch extremely biased news outlets that filter what you see and hear with extreme prejudice. Hey, Patrick, now there's a story for you to write an op-ed on - but I understand if you don't, I don't want your Gazette masters to have to slap your wrists..... :)
Tell you what I think WILL happen - Nancy "I'm the most powerful woman in America" ego Pelosi will continue to block anything and everything the Republicans throw at her, regardless if polls show that 90% of Americans want it - purely for political reasons, to heck with what is good for Americans or what Americans want - then, as soon as (she hopes) Obama returns to earth triumpantly to save humanity (oops, what I really meant to say, was, "gets elected President") - then she will immediately do a 180 - passing everything that she blocked before, therefore to give all the credit to the Democratic party. And it will be pathetic how many googly-eyed fools in this country will fall for it.
Like I've said before, I think the Rep/Dem 2-party system in this country is becoming one of the worst things there are - I wish there was no party system, and everyone ran purely as an Independent. And voted for the good of America, not for the good of their party........ sigh........

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on August 10, 2008 at 11:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hmmm.....Republican controlled, spending, warmongering, sex-scandal fiasco...... I totally agree - except I would just remove Republican from the beginning of that sentence. And, no, I would NOT replace it with Democrat. I don't want that kind of Congress, regardless of what handle you put in front of it. But if you think spending is thru the roof right now, just wait.......have you actually analyzed what Obama proposes to spend? Well, at least Bill Clinton never got embroiled in a sex scandal. Because he "never had sex with that woman". And at least John Edwards looked the reporters straight in the eyes for 2 years and swore that every report of his affair was a outright lie......

Posted by Fixed_News (anonymous) on August 11, 2008 at 8:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

While we are in the business of pointing fingers about infidelity why don't you look at Newt Gingrich and John McCain or the much revered Rudy Giuliani. What happened to McCain's first wife, who was disfigured in a car accident? Why did he cheat on her with Cindy? What about Newt's affair during the Clinton impeachment? There is no reason for personal lives to be brought into politics. What Clinton did was wrong as was Edwards and the above, but it has nothing to do with politics.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on August 11, 2008 at 10:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Fixed_News, I agree. There's plenty of finger pointing to be had on BOTH sides. I was merely pointing out that it is NOT a property ONLY of Republicans, as billclinton suggested above. His statement pretty much labeled one party - I don't suffer from nearly that much tunnel vision.
However, I will - in part - respectfully disagree with the statement that it has nothing to do with politics. It DOES have to do with character, and I believe character does have a part to play in political dealings. If you can't trust someone to look a camera straight in the eye and tell the truth, then why should you believe anything else that person says during a campaign? Or trust them to do what is best for their constituents, instead of what is best for their personal gain or re-election?
Oh, and by the way, I don't "rever" Giuliani. I don't really think all that many Republicans do, either. If they did, he would have fared much better during the primaries.... LOL

Posted by create (anonymous) on August 15, 2008 at 6:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

While personal lives may have nothing to do with politics, lying to the public does. If you can lie about one thing, you can lie about anything.

Posted by roger (anonymous) on August 16, 2008 at 7:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

And while we are on the subject of lies you can go to you tube and watch John Mccain lie and lie especially about veterans.