Posted by glarson (Gwen Larson) on September 2, 2008 at 7:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Additional comments from original story:

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

Posted by create (anonymous) on September 2, 2008 at 8:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The following story reports how Palin, as mayor of a small town of 6,700 residents, was able to secure a ton of money for improvements. Makes me wonder...if this kind of thing is available, why aren't we doing this?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 2, 2008 at 9:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

jayhawker, your comments on bipartisanship were right on target. I was listening to a talk show the other night, a caller was explaining why he will vote for Obama. Because (I sum it up roughly) he was going to be a different kind of politician, not the same old entrenched long-term type we have so many of in Washington.... Because he hadn't been in Washington long enough to become that type.... he represented a different kind of politics, one that wouldn't just "run with the party".... etc......
Apparently this person (as are many people that support Obama for those reasons) is unaware of his voting record, how he pretty much "runs with the party" 100% of the time, his "tactics" he used to get all his opponents thrown off the ballot for his first election, etc.... and then he picks a running mate who embodies every bit of that. And then McCain goes and picks someone who truly DOES represent what the caller was talking about..... and they blast him for those very reasons. Yes, there's some hypocrisy in the inexperience card, but there's alot of hypocrisy in the "Washington insider" play as well.

Oh, and wealth. Obama reported an income of $4.2 million in 2007. That's pretty wealthy in my book. Or are all the Obama supporters complaining about McCains wealth ignorant of yet another fact? Or am I just ignorant of the fact that the actual cutoff/dividing line between wealthy and poor is currently the magical $5 million mark? Gosh, inflation sure has messed with my sense of what qualifies as wealthy.... LOL

And race - African American? Here's an interesting read on the ethnic/racial makeup of some of our past presidents....

http://www.cf-cia.org/obama_lineage.htm

"Barack Hussein Obama is not half black. If elected, he would be the first Arab-American President, not the first black President. Barack Hussein Obama is 50% Caucasian from his mother's side and 43.75% Arabic and 6.25% African Negro from his father's side. While Barack Hussein Obama's father was from Kenya, his father's family was mainly Arabs. Barack Hussein Obama's father was only 12.5% African Negro and 87.5% Arab (his father's birth certificate even states he's Arab, not African Negro). "

I'm mostly German & Irish, and some Dutch, with just a tad of Swedish thrown in. But I don't refer to myself as a "Swedish-American"......

Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on September 2, 2008 at 9:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I guess abstinence only sex education stances don't really work afterall. Just ask Govenor Palin. Its great that we have to find out about her 17 year old daughter's pregnancy from the media. They should have been a little more forthcoming. I think that this issue (whether it is right or fair, or not) will likely cost McCain the White House. What else are we going to find out about her as the days drag on. I'm certainly not saying that the McCain/Palin team are trying to hide anything, but it looks like they are.

If you can't instill the values you hold in your own family, how do expect to be taken seriously on moral issues by the population of this country.

Personally, I agree with the candidates that this issue should not matter one bit, but the reality is that it does matter. I wonder how the republicans would have responded if a democrat's teenage daughter was pregnant out of wedlock. They have spent months bashing Obama for his association with various people, where he prays, his wife's thesis, etc. Then this comes up and its hands across America for Gov. Palin's brave daughter who directly contradicts the conservative stance on sex ed and family values. Seems a little too hypocritical for me.

Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on September 2, 2008 at 9:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Reading the previous posts on this, I wonder how many of the die hard conservatives in this town still think that Gov. Palin is the best pick for VP. I'm sure we will all hear alot of rationalization/justification on this in the weeks to come. Not just in Emporia but from social conservatives all over this country.

Posted by Fixed_News (anonymous) on September 2, 2008 at 12:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

But she didn't get an abortion so everything is ok, since she is the daughter of a Republican.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 2, 2008 at 12:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't know how hard they tried to "hide" it, (just how long do they think they could get away with it? She would certainly be showing by November, I would think....) - but I agree that is probably a news item that should have been stated upfront. Although I don't know exactly how you would have stated that at her acceptance speech....

Gee... maybe she's only 6.25% pregnant. To the Obama worshippers, that's all you need to qualify..... LOL

Posted by create (anonymous) on September 2, 2008 at 12:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Open_eyes, you may not have looked at the Washington Post link I provided above, but when Palin was mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, a town of only 6,700 people, she contracted with a D.C. lobbying firm to obtain $27 million which she used for improvements in her town. They made good use of the funds; however, my point is she is now rallying against federal earmarks. Just which side of the fence does this woman reside?

I don't have a problem with her using the earmarks wisely to benefit her town; I wouldn't be against it if we were to obtain such things for Emporia. However, why do one thing and say another? We continue to see more and more hypocrisy revealed.

One more thing. Why are we so interested in ethnic lineage? I am Portuguese/Hawaiian. Someone could probably make a case for the Arab influences in the Portuguese colonies way back when, and that many Portuguese were slave traders, but that doesn't make me an Arab slave trader.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 2, 2008 at 12:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Come ON folks, you can't really be as callous as you sound about Sarah Palin's daughter. This situation, which has been faced by many families, only proves that the Palins understand the hardships of being parents. How easy it would have been to have aborted the child and no one would have known, but they did the right thing. I'm proud of them. Democrats make a point to say that they are tolerant of others, and I think that most Democrats are. The posters here, however, are making a mockery of most Democrats with these comments and are poor ambassadors for their party. Senator Obama himself said that this is not something that should factor into this race. Anyone who has been a parent can look at this and realize that but for the grace of God go I. Comments like these only make the writer appear to be insensitive and mean. As a Republican, I am tempted to use these posts to point to others as proof that the Democrats are hypocrites, but I know that these posters do not represent mainstream Democrats. Most Democrats are better than trying to politically capitalize on the mistakes of a teenage girl.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 2, 2008 at 12:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

While we are talking about this, I think that most Republicans would agree with create on the lineage issue. Obama's name and heritage mean nothing other than how it may have shaped his views. He has been under the microscope enough now that we know what his views are, at least as much as we can any politician, so his name and heritage have become irrelevant.

create, I think that you might be confusing Mayor Palin's use of earmarked money rather than whether it was appropriate in the first place. As the recipient of the earmark, her job was to properly administer it in the public good, which the record shows that she did. That is different from being the policy maker who decided to make the appropriation in the first place. I think that you are comparing apples to oranges.

Posted by create (anonymous) on September 2, 2008 at 2:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

jayhawker, I agree with you that it was her job to use the funds for the benefit of her town, and yes, she did do that. In fact, the projects were noteworthy ones and include a mental health facility. This is all good.

However, the article I read in the Washington Post says, "Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin employed a lobbying firm to secure almost $27 million in federal earmarks for a town of 6,700 residents while she was its mayor, according to an analysis by an independent government watchdog group."

So while she didn't actually make the appropriation in the first place, she did indeed employ a lobby group to secure the funds. Are we splitting hairs?

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 2, 2008 at 2:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't think that we are splitting hairs, create. I understand your point, but for a Mayor of a town to lobby for assistance is not the same thing as being the decision maker to grant the request. That is what makes governing so difficult. All of these requests were, no doubt, worthy; however, we need the ability to say "No" for the greater good. One of Dwight Eisenhower's greatest attributes was his ability to look someone in the eye and deny their requests. Some think that it came from commanding armies in the field where hard choices are made by the minute. I don't see any inconsistency in Mayor Palin's earmark request and Vice Presidential candidate Palin's position against earmarks. She has a totally different obligation now than she did then. I think that that speaks well for her.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 2, 2008 at 2:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

One of my all time favorite presidents was Harry Truman. He was tough as nails and was willing to follow his convictions in the face of overwhelming opposition. His philosophy was that "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." I have always wondered why Franklin Roosevelt and his inner circle selected him for the vice presidency in 1944 when it was obvious to all who knew of Roosevelt's health that they were selecting the next president. Truman was a little known and poorly qualified candidate, having served only as a county commissioner (called the County Court in those days) and a back bench senator from Missouri who had little influence on the issues of the day. However, he became one of America's finest presidents. From what I can see, Sarah Palin may be this generation's Harry Truman. She has been able to look a struggle in the eye and do the right thing even when there was an easy way out both times. She appears to be a person of conviction. What more can we ask for?

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 2, 2008 at 3:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

create & others: I'm NOT concerned with his lineage. Just setting the record straight. It was a topic earlier in this thread, and he was being referred to a "African-American", and some posts regarding getting the african-american vote in the US. Just telling it like it is. As the link I posted stated, if we are going to refer to him as African-American based on his lineage, then if he's elected, he won't truly be our first African-American president. Thomas Jefferson was. And there have been at least 4 others since then. Men with a higher percentage of African lineage in their blood than Obama has.
You're right, it doesn't matter, and it SHOULDN'T matter..... but unfortunately, to some people, it does. So let's just get the facts straight.

http://media.www.dailytarheel.com/media/...

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 2, 2008 at 3:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

open_eyes: Thanks for the post and the link. I looked at the article that you cite, and honestly I doubt its accuracy. All of my life I have read and studied history, especially of the American presidency and vice presidency. I have never heard of the claims made in the article (other than unfounded speculation that Jefferson may have fathered a child by a slave). I would be interested in the underlying source documents foundational to the article.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 2, 2008 at 3:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I do understand your points, though, open_eyes.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 2, 2008 at 3:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

By the way, being able to praise Harry Truman is a sign of my aging. My father was as strong of a Republican as I am, and during Truman's administration, we both would get so livid at him because he could be extremely partisan and had an acidic way of referring to Republicans. I'm not sure that my departed Father would approve of me saying nice things about him even all these years later. I guess that it proves that we can all mature in our views as we do so in our bodies.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 2, 2008 at 3:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

yes, jayhawker, I may have posted those links a little too hastily - if you google, there seems to be quite a bit of speculation and rumors surrounding certain presidents. Here is a link to an interesting discussion on NPR regarding the Warren Harding claim and others:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/newsandviews/20...

Regardless, I don't really care whether any of our previous presidents had black or African lineage or not. Nor am I concerned about the next possible president. I've said many times my idea ticket would have been Colin Powell pres & Condi Rice his running mate. So there goes anyone's argument that I'm prejudiced against blacks and/or women. HOWEVER, if that WAS the case, I wouldn't go around touting Colin as our first Chinese-American president and claiming Condi would be our first Eskimo Vice-President, just because they might each have 6% of their lineage due to that. Just trying to set the record straight when I hear over and over about Obama being an African-American.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 2, 2008 at 4:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Good points, open_eyes. Sometimes facts get in the way of our opinions. Thanks for putting the facts in front of us. Sometimes we need that.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 2, 2008 at 4:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You're welcome, jayhawker, and thanks for your points as well.

Posted by create (anonymous) on September 2, 2008 at 4:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thank you, open_eyes. I understand now.

On another subject, I hear over and over again about Obama not wearing a flag pin, not putting his hand over his heart when the national anthem plays, yada yada yada. Drives me nuts. I think of all the times I've seen people at ball games not putting their hands over their hearts or not removing their hats when the flag passes during parades.

Jayhawker, good to read your post on Truman.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 2, 2008 at 4:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thx create - I tend to veer off my point alot - sorry :)

Just as a humorous story somewhat in the same vein...

I remember hearing about this on the radio a couple months ago, but forgot about it until this discussion. In South Africa, chinese are now considered "blacks", so they can take advantage of government policies to end white domination. So maybe Obama could be our first Eskimo/Chinese/Russian president after all.... LOL

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/746109...

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 2, 2008 at 4:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

create, I assume that you are not making excuses for those who fail to show proper respect for our national symbols. Although I rarely talk about it, men dying in the defense of our country is very personal to me and it upsets me greatly to see the same people that you refer to. I have to say that Obama's failures to render proper respect offends me as well. I just have to remind myself that he never served his country and grew up in a time when respect for those who gave their lives in service of others was not taught to him. For those like Obama, a person dying in the service of others is an abstraction. For some of us, it is a reality. He is still a young man, and perhaps he will learn to give proper respect even though he has never experienced the sacrifices of those before him. I don't mean to sound harsh toward him - he has not had life experiences or teaching that would make him different than he is. He is not the only one by far. I pine for the day when all of us can appreciate what so many have given in a cause larger than themselves, on behalf of a home, a family, and a way of life. A culture that does not respect its symbols and its dead can not endure. I don't think that it is too much to ask of one who seeks the highest office in the land, or, for that matter, the lowliest among us, to at least render respect for the symbols of those brave men and women who gave their all.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 2, 2008 at 4:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

But ya gotta remember, jayhawker, that Obama's wife only "recently" became proud to be an American.....

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 2, 2008 at 4:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Forgive me, create, but you have me going. I know that Michele Obama labors under the same lack of life experiences as does her husband, and therefore should be given some leeway, but I have to tell you that when she said that "for the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country" (because her husband was gaining in the polls), I wonder under what rock she had hid all these years. Asking a Kansas farm boy, with a young and promising life yet ahead, to go serve his country and in the course of doing his duty, forfeits his life and all the promise attending thereto, should invoke pride in every person. What a tribute to America that that a young man would answer his country's call to duty, knowing full well that he might not ever see his home or family again. This scenario has played out over and over since the revolution. How could Michele not be cognizant of that? How could she not be proud of her country when it produced thousands and thousands of young men like that? Is she so selfish as to have never given it a single thought? Sometimes I greatly worry about the future of our country.

Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on September 2, 2008 at 5:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jayhawker: Well said and much appreciated. Thank you for doing your part to keep patriotism alive.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 2, 2008 at 7:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks for your post, Bjnemp. I just think that too many people just don't get it. Obama never served a day in uniform and Michele is apparently so self centered that nothing gets through to her. I suppose if that is your background that it is not surprising that Michele was not proud of her country and Obama doesn't understand why people like me are offended when he fails to render respect to our national symbols, and thereby fails to honor the service of others. Imagine seeing your buddy, who took care of you through thick and thin, die from a gunshot to the head during a firefight. Imagine the fear (quickly replaced by anger) when the enemy shoots at you in an attempt to kill you because you are an American and for no other reason. Imagine having your best friend die while you watch as the life slowing goes out of him after both of his legs are blown off. They died out of duty and service to others. Their young and promising lives, all that they had or would ever have, died with them. Then, come home to see a presidential candidate (that's right, presidential candidate) who fails to honor the flag and whose wife is only proud of her country because people are voting for her husband. Let me tell you, it sickens the heart, even if it has been years ago. I will never respect Michele Obama, nor her husband unless he starts to show some respect himself. The flag is not just a piece of cloth - it represents those men who died as much as if it were their personal crest. To dishonor it is to dishonor them. If you want to be president or first lady, you need to understand that.

Posted by create (anonymous) on September 2, 2008 at 8 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jayhawker, I would never, ever make excuses for those who fail to show respect for our flag, or our national anthem. I am a long-time military wife, USMC; my husband held the Distinguished Flying Cross and died in the service of our country. I bleed red and gold.

I wasn't making an excuse for Obama. My point was that so many have made an issue of him not putting his hand on his heart, or not wearing a flag pin whereas large numbers of people don't either. BTW, in the last couple of weeks, I have seen Obama putting his hand over his heart. Yesterday, during a live interview, he was wearing a flag pin.

As for Michelle Obama, I can't say. I don't know where she is coming from without having read her works. I simply have not. She doesn't interest me much.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 2, 2008 at 8:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thank you, create, and if you would on behalf of your husband accept my thanks for his service to all of us. All gave some but some gave all. There are not words to express my appreciation for his contribution, or yours. Although I was not directing my comments at you, I am nonetheless embarrassed. Please forgive me. Semper Fi (if it is alright for an old soldier to use that phrase).

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 2, 2008 at 9:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I guess, create, the difference I see between those other people not doing that, is that they are not running for the highest office in the land, the elected leader of the country, the military commander-in-chief. I see alot of people doing alot of things I don't agree with, but they are not running for president, and aren't trying to get my vote. (Nor would I vote for them if they did not respect America the same way either).

But what do I know, I'm just one of those that "cling to my religion and guns".

Also, accept my thanks and gratitude for your husband's service to this great country.

Posted by create (anonymous) on September 4, 2008 at 6:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Thank you, both Jayhawker and Open_eyes. Semper Fi, Jayhawker. Open_eyes, I see where you're coming from as far as Obama needing to remember his position. You're right. I guess what spurred my comment too was seeing the Bushes at the Olympics and neither put a hand to heart when our anthem played at one of the venues I watched. But, I digress.

On to Palin as Republican VP Nominee. I look forward to local comments today after her keynote address last night. I thought she was in attack-dog mode far too long, too many barbs for me. "Here's a little news flash..." Please! Phrasing like that made her end up looking like a bitch. I was interested in a plan of some kind, not personal attacks. This is exactly the kind of politics I hate, and what has made this campaign far too long. We should limit the time people are allowed to spend campaigning to say 8 months for everything.

Both Palin and Giuliani attacked Obama for his efforts with community organizing. I find that curious because community organizing is the foundation for the women's suffrage movement, and most definitely the civil rights movement that got its start in a church basement meeting. Sarah Palin would not have been addressing a nation last night were it not for community organizing regarding women's rights. You go girl, bite the hand that fed you. I was wavering between the two candidates, but listening to her attacks last night sealed my vote for Obama.

Posted by create (anonymous) on September 4, 2008 at 8:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

One more thing, you might enjoy the following video. Maybe not. Hope you look anyway.

http://www.slatev.com/player.html?id=177...

Posted by momus (anonymous) on September 4, 2008 at 8:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Create,

I'll agree with most of your assessment. I was a strong Obama lean, and I will wait until McCain speaks before I make any final determination, but he has some serious ground to make up after the Palin speech. Community activism (some call them grass roots movements) was once the cornerstone of the Grand Old Party and its contract with America. And, after a couple of days of using conservative proxies to talk about the inappropriateness of criticisms leveled at Palin, I was expecting a different tone and demeanor (but, admittedly, that is my fault for using what I wanted to hear as a basis for judging a candidate). The message seems somewhat confused. During the convention, delegates have talked about passing the torch (in my mind, maintaining the status quo) while simultaneously attempting to position McCain as a maverick change candidate. Those seem to be diametrically opposed positions (to me, anyway). Like I said, I'm looking forward to what McCain has to say.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 4, 2008 at 10:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

create and momus: I think that you may have missed the point about the community organizing. No one is diminishing it - the point was that Obama and his campaign had attacked Governor Palin as having no experience other than a small town Mayor before becoming governor. The GOP was pointing out that Senator Obama's only experience before the senate was community organizing. As Palin pointed out, being a mayor is like being a community organizer, only with responsibility. I don't think anyone was putting down community organizers.

crreate: I mentioned the other day how proud Alaskans are right now with their governor being the vice presidential nominee. Since you are from Hawaii, I forgot to mention that Hawaiians are equally proud that a son is the presidential nominee. The 49th and 50th states have come into their own. Good for both of them.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 4, 2008 at 10:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I have the feeling that she wouldn't have spent so much time in "attack dog mode" had she not been smeared so much in the last 3-4 days. The NY Times has already had to print a retraction for its false claim that Palin was a member of the Alaska secessionist group.....
I'm curious as to why attacks from the left are ok, but counter-attacks from the right are not tolerated.....???? Why is it ok to slam being a mayor of a small town, but not ok to slam being a community organizer? Both candidates claim to be anti-earmark - but they still use them at times. Why is it ok to slam Palin for the earmarks she still got for Alaska, but not ok to slam Obama for seeking $3.4 million in earmarks for Biden's lobbyist son? Why is it ok to slam Palin because her daughter became pregnant out of wedlock, but Obama gets to throw a hissy fit and threaten people to lay off his wife when she makes idiotic statements like she only recently became proud of being an American? Why is it ok to rip Palin up one side & down the other for every chance association she may have had in the past, but investigating Obama's close personal ties with terrorists like Khalidi & Ayers is unfair? Again, I'm curious as to why attacks from the left are ok, but counter-attacks from the right are not tolerated?

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 4, 2008 at 10:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

open_eyes: The answers to your questions are obvious. For years and years, the main stream media has been biased against Republicans, especially conservative Republicans. There is definitely a double standard. Sarah Palin is a rising star and it scares the daylights out of the media. They will go after her with a vengeance. I just hope that Americans are wise enough to see through it.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 4, 2008 at 10:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

jayhawker - you are right, I do totally understand the media slant and the double standard. I was just hoping people are smart enough to see thru it. I'm saddened that listening to one candidate defend themself and fight back seals the vote for someone, when there is so much being thrown from the other side that people seem to be oblivious to. And so much more that SHOULD be brought to light being ignored/dismissed by the mainstream media.... I'm all for community organizing, but after listening to all the slams about her being mayor of a small town, I thought "good for her" when she struck back.

Posted by netloafer (anonymous) on September 4, 2008 at 10:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I was leaning Obama, but I'm now more undecided.

I think Sarah Palin has broad appeal with blue collar families, particularly men. I think they like her blend of toughness and tenderness. Time will tell, but she might just be an American version of Maggie Thatcher. Wasn't she dismissed by the left in Great Britain as nothing more than the daughter of a drug store clerk?

One of the things Sarah Palin did very effectively last night was to exploit Barack Obama's vulnerabilities. When she talked about the way he spoke one way to blue collar workers in Scranton and then spoke derisively of them to San Francisco elites, she hit the raw nerve he had prodded in much of Middle America. She took full advantage of that big mistake. He made it possible, now it will be up to him to undo the mistake if he can. It's going to be very difficult.

I think she also took full advantage of the Democrats response to her being from a small town in a state that doesn't seem to matter to them. They may not have intended to do it, but the sense it generated in a lot of blue collar, small town America, was that the Democrats believe that those "folks" really don't matter. They may now have to counter with the idea that they were misinterpreted, that they really care about small town America. I'm not sure how successful they will be.

I also think there's something profoundly disturbing to the Democrats about her. She's conservative, tough, and gritty. She's pro life when the prevailing liberal mantra says she should be pro choice. She's articulate when the prevailing liberal view is that conservatives are knuckle dragging Neanderthals. And so it goes.

I think McCain may have caught lightning in a bottle and I think the Democrats are now in the unenviable position of trying to catch a tiger by the tail.

When this cycle started I thought Obama would win in a landslide. Now I think we're going to have a very interesting race to the finish.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 4, 2008 at 10:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You know, open_eyes, while we are on this subject, Obama picked Joe Biden as his running mate in large part because he has a reputation for being an "attack dog," yet we hear no criticism of that at all. The media's double standard should upset everyone; instead, we see examples of otherwise reasonable and clear thinking people who accept this garbage. Good examples are create and momus, both of whom are very reasonable and well informed people. In fact, when I look at these forums and see their names, I read their posts every time because I almost always learn something from them. I have absolute respect for them. However, I even see them buying into the media's agenda. I learned a long time ago that two reasonable people can look at a given set of facts and draw opposite conclusions. Both momus and create are clearly reasonable people and I respect their support for Obama and Biden, but it does baffle me how they cannot see what is really going on here.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 4, 2008 at 10:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

netloafer is another reasonable and well informed person. A good example is his post above. He is absolutely correct that McCain basically beat the media at its own game. He picked a person that, by profile, one would expect to be liberal. Since she is not, they feel like the Democrats probably do about Joe Lieberman - betrayed. However, in their emotional reaction to this betrayal, they (once again) tipped their hand and revealed that they are in the tank with Obama, even to the point of publishing outright lies about Mrs. Palin and even went to the point of saying that a woman with children could not possibly be suited to the vice presidency. I wonder what women with children in America thought about that coming from the liberal nerve centers. You are correct, netloafer, the media and the Democrats have a real conundrum on their hands.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 4, 2008 at 11:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

netloafer, remember in the last election, when Geraldine Ferraro made the statement, when talking about red/blue states, something to the effect of "You've got NY on 1 side, and California on the other, and what have you got in between? NOTHING!".... That pretty much sums up the attitude of liberal Democrats towards Middle America. No wonder she gets slammed for being mayor of a small town, but being a community organizer in a bigger city is somehow much more....
But, ya gotta remember, small states don't matter to Obama. Remember, to him, IRAN is just a tiny country, and not a serious threat. Probably because Iran doesn't have enough community organizers... LOL
jayhawker - I agree. I absolutely have learned alot from the comments of the people you mention, and respect their opinions.
I always try to see both sides. Anytime a finger is pointed, generally there's something to be hidden. Yes, Palin has used earmarks despite campaigning against them. But check out how much Obama & Biden have used earmarks...

http://election2008bank.blogspot.com/200...

I'll give Biden credit, however. He came out today and said that Palin's family was "off-limits", and that she may have been the victim of sexism recently by the media. Of course, that's an old tactic, distance yourself from something but let the media continue their feeding frenzy, (remains to be seen) - but I will give him credit for stating that. I think maybe he fears a backlash if it gets too much more out of hand.

Personally, if you're running for Pres/VicePres, you have to expect that your life is an open book to be cherry-picked over. I'm just amazed at how much in Obama's past is ignored, glossed over, or put off-limits by the mainstream media.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 4, 2008 at 11:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

One other thought along these lines, open_eyes. I admit that this is speculative, but I believe that if Sarah Palin were a liberal Democrat rather than a conservative Republican, the media would be praising everything that they now criticize. In a way, if it wasn't that they are being so mean to this lady, it is fun to watch their consternation. I would like to listen in on the phone calls between NBC, CNBC, MSNBC, CBS and ABC News when they call Obama's campaign looking for talking points and a strategy to deal with this "lightning in a bottle" (as netloafer called her).

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 4, 2008 at 11:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Exactly!!!!

Posted by netloafer (anonymous) on September 4, 2008 at 12:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think Sarah Palin has taken almost everyone by surprise. I also think it's in part because there has been a well crafted stereotype of what conservatives look like, or are supposed to look like.

I have many friends who are liberal. I have a great deal of respect for them. But I am always aware that they believe that conservatives are unreflective, uncaring, uneducated brutes. I'm also amazed that in our conversations they don't really want the dialogue to be a two way street. As soon as someone conservative starts to outline an opinion or express a philosophy they interrupt, believing that their opinion is the only valid or valuable one to be heard. I've even had to say on occasion "The American dialogue is a two way street. Common courtesy should demand that as one speaks the other listens and vice versa. Please don't violate that rule." Unfortunately, they rarely listen.

Sadly, this is the attitude that too often smothers our political discourse. Conservatives are often derided as right wing reactionaries bent on being oppressors. That is far from the truth. While conservatives no doubt place high value on tradition, they are also extremely innovative, extremely thoughtful, extremely caring. Our founding fathers were a prime example. So was Edmund Burke. So was Ronald Reagan and Bill Buckley. T.S. Eliot was a thoughful conservative as was C.S. Lewis and J.R.R Tolkein. Economists like Milton Friedman and F.A. Hayek were proudly conservative in their philosophy.

Will McCain/Palin succeed? I don't know. But I do know that Sarah Palin has tapped into a reservoir. Barack Obama and the Democratic Party have at least seemed to be dismissive of Middle America and small town values. The Republicans are going to take the fullest advantage of the opening. It will be up to Obama and Biden to prove the Republicans wrong. I think it is going to be a supremely difficult task, particularly when I think there is a great deal of truth in the notion that Obama, Biden, and the Democratic Party has little value for contribution Middle America has made to the common good.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 4, 2008 at 12:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Very well said, netloafer. Some of my conservative friends, more cognizant of what others think of them than I, are "closet conservatives" because they don't want to be seen as a neanderthal. I am only aware of their conservative beliefs because they feel comfortable with me. It is sad.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 4, 2008 at 12:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Reminds me of liberal Hollywood. Apparently, for actors & actresses, if you're conservative, you have to keep it in the closet else you will be blacklisted. I've seen quite a few stories & claims to that effect.

Posted by create (anonymous) on September 4, 2008 at 2:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Now, now, netloafer, your liberal friends are interrupting you not because they believe you to be a brute, but because they are trying to get a word in edgewise. C'mon now, you've got to admit that you have a tendency to go on and on. And on. I've heard you speak many times. Gotta shake my finger at you here even though I do believe you to be intelligent and well-spoken. I've learned much from you even though I don't always agree.

My goodness, I hope I don't have to keep my liberal views in the closet here. Incidentally, as an English teacher, I do have a problem with Palin wanting to remove all the books in the Wasilla library that contained bad words.

Netloafer, you're right that Palin took everyone by surprise, particularly the media I'm sure, but I don't know because I haven't watched any news today. Instead I've been out in my garden picking green beans, cucumbers, and okra. It's a lovely day. I like your "lightning in a bottle" reference.

I do know what I saw last night, and I was giving a gut reaction to that earllier. It simply bothered me that once she began the attack, it was relentless. I did pay attention, and only looked away once when her little girl licked her hands to comb down the baby's hair. Yuck!

And yes, Jayhawker, two people can look at the same thing and still come away with two different conclusions. It happened to us didn't it? Yet we remain forum friends, I'm sure. Thanks for the compliment. And yes, both Hawaii and Alaska are sure proud of their native son and daughter. BTW, I enjoyed listening to Hawaii's governor Linda Lingle too last night, and afterwards had to chuckle when I received a phone call from a friend who said, "That governor of Hawaii sounds just like you." Regional dialect.

I look forward to McCain's speech tonight. I'm guessing and hoping he does not attack and instead outlines a plan and gives Americans some concrete ideas about the issues that concern us all.

Thanks to everyone for the compliment for reasons why you read my posts. I appreciate it. We all learn from each other.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 4, 2008 at 3:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

create: I think that you need to rethink whether you are really a liberal Democrat. When you post in which you only offer an opinion, I swear you sound like a conservative Republican. My late Father-in-Law, a gentle and patient man, was raised as a Democrat and continued to vote so the whole of his life. However, he was as much a conservative Republican as Barry Goldwater in his views, but would vote for candidates like Hubert Humphrey and Bill Roy. It frustrated me to no end. Is it possible, create, that you cling to your party even though it has left you along the way? Is it possible that we'll have you voting McCain-Palin this fall? It's bothering me to agree so often with a person who professes to align herself with those so misguided. I am becoming disoriented. Tell me that I am not wrong.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 4, 2008 at 3:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

momus, I'm looking your way, too.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 4, 2008 at 3:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well, we've already gotten an outline from one party: "Change!".

Basically if McCain says anything at all he'll have given a more in-depth outline than anything I've heard from the other side, except for raise taxes, and bail out of Iraq.

Posted by netloafer (anonymous) on September 4, 2008 at 3:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Create

Brevity is not my long suit and I don't feel any great need to change that, no more than I would expect someone content with brevity to change themselves to suit me. I prefer Dostoevsky or Solzhenistyn, others may prefer Hemingway. It's partly a matter a matter of preference and partly conviction.

In the sanctity of my home I love conversation. My wife, friends, and others often have spirited, polite discussions. I listen as much as I speak, probably more. Why I've even been know to say things like "I be interested to know what you think about this and why" or "That's interesting....tell me more."

I'm not much on banning books either. But my guess is that the left bans as much conservative stuff for "politically incorrect content" in public as the right does for "language."

I don't think Sarah Palin's intent last night was to please everyone, particularly those with opposing philosophies. When folks (myself included) are at that point they are going to tend to see things in negative rather than positive terms.

I am undecided in this election. I was pretty firmly in Obama's camp, but that's changed. I want to hear more from him. I think Sarah Palin has raised some legitimate concerns. I'm very interested in what his response will be. As Ricky said to Lucy, "He's got some 'splainin' to do."

Posted by create (anonymous) on September 4, 2008 at 9:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jayhawker, you're not wrong. Not entirely. Perhaps living in Kansas for 30 years and having grown a head of white hair has helped me to develop a more conservative attitude in a lot of areas. In politics, more often than not, I vote a split ticket. I like that freedom. So I guess that makes me an independent. But you know what? It isn't just party politics that makes up a person's disposition. You and I can agree on many things and still vote independently from each other. I respect your opinions, you seem to be highly intelligent, and I agree with most of what you have to say. We don't have to agree one hundred percent. When you always agree with others, that becomes your prison. We must choose our jailers carefully.

Netloafer, I'm glad to hear you don't like banning books either. I would have refused to teach in a school that allowed it, whether for language or politically incorrect anything. I taught To Kill a Mockingbird for many years and every time I reviewed it to teach it, or to answer the many questions kids had, I never failed to learn something new. When I retired, I brought home my dog- eared, well annotated copy and it has a special place in my bookcase. Over the years, however, I did meet with a few people who complained that I was teaching it. They didn't like the black content. I never once waivered and even invited them to read it. One of those same people also complained because I taught Hiroshima. They didn't like the Japanese content. I can only shake my head and hope the child learns to get beyond the parent's attitudes by studying such books. Books reveal truths.

Speaking of truths, I want to hear more from both sides and McClean is on now touting that "Change is coming." Now both sides are using that word.

Posted by create (anonymous) on September 4, 2008 at 10:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

All right, that's it. I'm outta here. Just explain to me why all the put downs regarding Obama's community organizing activities last night in Giuliani's and Palin's speeches, yet tonight in McCain's speech he said in his final thought that he urged people to correct mistakes they see in the country by getting involved wherever they see that action is needed. He said, to join the military, become a teacher, get involved with your community, serve a cause greater than yourself. Is that not community organizing?

Posted by netloafer (anonymous) on September 4, 2008 at 10:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Create

I've read "To Kill a Mackingbird." I think Harper Lee was a splendid writer and worthy of classroom consideration. She spoke to the racial divide in America in a very gentle, compelling and powerful way. I doubt that Sarah Palin would want it banned in schools.

I remember in college being required to read Eldridge Cleaver's "Soul on Ice." I did come away from the reading with an understanding of anger, but never could see the value of rape as an instrument of social justice, which is exactly what Cleaver advocated. While that trash was pawned off as necessary for the sake of social consciousness I have grave doubts about whether or not we would ever have been required to read the Sermon on the Mount as socially conscious literature. So much for open bookshelves.

I hope you're not saying that the Democratic Party has copyrights on the word "change."

I listened to John McCain's speech and I was more favorably impressed than I thought I would be. It was far heavier on specifics than the pundits had led the public to believe. I liked his idea of wage compensation for the difference between the previous wage of dislocated workers and retraining for global economy jobs. I need to hear more from Obama, but from what I've heard to this point I think he wants to bring back the low wage manufacturing jobs that have moved overseas. A couple of weeks ago I listened to China's foreign minister speak about the new economy. He said that China's strategy is to become the world's low cost producer and that America needs to understand its role in the new economy is to be the nation of technical skill and leadership. If the Chinese understand this, why don't our leaders? I think John McCain, for all his flaws, may understand that better than Barack Obama.

I also came away with a good understanding of McCain's personal narrative. I think it was powerful. To admit that personal failure at a time of great trial taught him that being an American wasn't about personal benefit and privilege, but about his obligation to this country. I thought it was quite powerful indeed. I think it may have made Obama look small by comparison.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 4, 2008 at 11:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

create: I like the analogy to prison and the need to chose our jailers carefully. If you don't mind, I will use that sometimes.

Where did you get the idea that anyone was against community organizing? You said it best - John McCain himself urged us all to be such as volunteers. The point was that Senator Obama, who was one professionally (I wonder who paid him?), suggested that Sarah Palin had no legitimate pre-gubernatorial experience because she was only a small town mayor, and she (and others) were pointing out that being a mayor is a community organizer who actually has responsibilities. It was not a slam on community organizers.

I wish that I had had an English teacher with your tart. I read Mockingbird on my own about 5 years ago, and you are right about it. I disagree with you only to the extent that I do not accept that all books reveal truth. I do agree that all books provoke the brain. Anytime that happens, reasoning and opinions become less of a stranger to each other.

I still think that you are a McCain voter at heart.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 4, 2008 at 11:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I can't explain the putdowns of Obama's community organizing any more than I can explain all the putdowns of Palin's mayorship of a small town. Or, should I say, I can explain the putdowns of Obama's community organizing in the same way I can explain all the putdowns of Palin's mayorship of a small town. To be overly sensitive about one but not about the other seems to me, well, somewhat biased. After all the snide remarks about her small-town mayorship I think they/she would be remiss if they did NOT draw a comparison. In McCain's "call to action", he also suggested running for a public office. Would that not include being mayor of a small town? I suggest that if Obama's camp & the media don't like the community organizing remarks, then they need to look in the mirror and ask themselves why they seem to think their small-town mayor putdowns are somehow different, and therefore ok. Personally, I think they're both "permissable" jabs. Repubs have long pointed at Obama's lack of experience, and now they have someone in their own ranks who is open to the same criticism. Fair is fair both ways, not just in one direction, as the media would like us to believe.
The gloves are off, the conventions are over, and the fight has begun in earnest. Politics is never pretty, and there are arguments and accusations coming that will require alot thicker skin than this, respectfully.

I'm tickled pink that Obama has finally talked to O'Reilly. Tonight's conversation was good, I look forward to the next 3 segments of it next Mon, Tue, & Wed.

By the way, I'm not sure our role is to be the nation of technical skill. We're outsourcing all of that as fast as we possibly can, too.... :(

Posted by netloafer (anonymous) on September 5, 2008 at 5:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Open_Eyes

I agree that we are outsourcing our technical skill. I think what the Chinese foreign minister was saying was that we should be the leader. Unfortunately we are turning away from that role in favor of being the world's consumer of choice and ignoring the future. I think John McCain was hinting at an economic Marshall Plan that would make the transition from low wage manufacturing to high skill/high wage jobs of the global economy. We'll see if he can deliver.

Posted by create (anonymous) on September 5, 2008 at 11:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sure, Jayhawker, you can use my prison/jailer analogy. Anytime. I stole it from a movie I'd seen many years ago and often used it in the classroom. When kids discuss anything, most will look around at their peers as if to check for acceptance.

I agree that neither Palin nor Giuliani slammed community organizers themselves. Instead, it was the way they mocked Obama's participation as a community organizer. Over and over and over again, with the audience participating by chanting their words, they made fun of his experiences in the organization he worked for on Chicago's south side. I don't know exactly what he did, nor who paid him, although I do know he had already graduated from Harvard Law School so he must have been doing pro bono work for those who had been recently displaced in their jobs when a plant closed down. This tells me something about the man, because with a Harvard Law degree, he could have gone to work for any number of law firms anywhere and not cared one whit about those who had lost their jobs.

I believe firmly in people getting involved in their communities, so I agree wholeheartedly with McCain's idea of getting involved with something larger than yourself. I for one sit on a local board, so of course I agree. My point was that while Palin and Giuliani put down Obama's community service, McCain urged everyone to get involved in it. It doesn't seem as if everyone is on the same page.

I missed any jabs at Sarah Palin by the Dems. I fault myself there. All I can say is I wish both parties would stop the jabbing entirely and get down to the real issues that concern us all.

Both candidates seem to be calling for change in the same areas. All we need to know now is exactly how they plan to do this. I'd like to hear more about what McCain has to say in the area of Education, for example, because what he said in his speech last night was not enough. Bussing is not the answer to low test scores.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 5, 2008 at 2:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

create: I am short on facts here, too, but somewhere along the line Obama has made a potful of money. I noticed that his net wealth was in the millions. I understand that neither Michelle (thanks for the correct spelling on her name) nor Barack had any family money, so they have done something that was pretty lucrative. I am not disputing that he did some pro bono work, but he made up for it along the line.

Many years ago, I served on the School Board. As such, I learned a lot about public education. No doubt it has significantly changed since in those days we funded the schools from local sources (now it is state funded) and we didn't have No Child Left Behind or QPA (both of which, in my opinion, are excellent ideas). As an aside, I hear Democrats complain about NCLB, when in fact, it was Ted Kennedy's idea. What I heard from McCain's education policy last night was that he supports vouchers giving parents more control. No doubt the "Education Establishment" (teachers' unions, School Boards, etc.) will strongly oppose that. However, I think that we may have reached a point in our history where maybe we should try it. One state (Wisconsin?) has/had it, and honestly, I don't know how it worked out. As a retired teacher, what do you think?

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 5, 2008 at 2:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

jayhawker - 2 years ago Obama's reported income was just short of $1 million, and last year it jumped to about $4.2 million, mostly due to sales of his 2 books.

Funny side, I find it rather humorous that this morning it was reported that US magazine is getting massive cancellations both from subscribers and ad agencies after their Palin cover story titled "Babies, Lies, & Scandal" (which made a nice contrast with their issue with Barack & Michelle on the cover titled "Why He Loves Her" .... I'm waiting for the Palin cover with her husband with the title "Why He Loves Her", and the Barack issue outlining his friendships with Ayers & others entitled "Lies & Scandals", but I won't hold my breath - LOL)

I also figured that, since Barack barely finished his acceptance speech before we had a Gazette article starting with "Before an enormous, adoring crowd", and ending with "Give us your thoughts about the speech. Post your comments below", that we would have seen the same type of article trumpeting McCain and asking for comments..... but then I remembered, after all, this is the Gazette...... similar in impartiality to US Magazine.....

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 5, 2008 at 2:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

create, I, like you, wish parties would stop with all the jabbing entirely and get down to the issues, but don't hold your breath. It may seem like it is worse today, because we are older, probably pay more attention, and information is much more readily available, but from what I've read, there have been many, many campaigns throughout US history where the mudslinging made what we see today downright tame by comparison. Sadly, just a part of politics that will probably always be a part of it....

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 5, 2008 at 2:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh, and OutsiderJ, I know your post was aways back regarding Palins teenage daughter, but apparently it was the Palin camp themselves that made public the info about her pregnancy, so I don't see where they were trying to hide anything, or where it came from the media, as you claim. I also don't think it will "cost" McCain the White House any more than Cheney's lesbian daughter cost Bush the White House. Or Clinton's marijuana use cost him the White House. And finally, if you are faulting how they raised her, then apparently you have the answer: Please, do tell, or better yet, write a book. If you have found the magic secret as to how you can 100% guarantee that your teenager will follow your every direction, and 100% always adhere to the values you have instilled in them, then I, and millions, no, billions, of parents across the globe will buy your book, I GUARANTEE it. And I would respectfully request that you personally autograph my copy. Someone with that kind of knowledge will ensure that my copy becomes priceless. And please, hurry with the secret. Kids are getting older, and already starting to rebel....... LOL

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 5, 2008 at 2:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

open_eyes: Excellent. You hit the nail on the head, especially as to the media, the Gazette included. Thanks.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 5, 2008 at 2:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thx, jayhawker. And, as an FYI, from what I can find, McCain's family wealth is almost exclusively held by his wife, Cindy - an heiress to a major beer distribution company.

Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on September 5, 2008 at 3:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I was merely trying to point out that it is hard to be taken seriously when you can't get your values to metriculate through your own family. I have learned a lot in the last few days about Gov. Palin. Some things I have learned are true, some are false. I still don't like her. I don't mind John McCain. I like Joe Biden. I think Barak Obama is too melodramatic for my taste. I'm stuck. Out of the four of them I like Gov. Palin the least. I mean if she is so great, how come she hasn't done any interviews with the media, or appeared in a forum where the room is not filled with repulicans. I guess the debates will tell. Why can't we mix it up and have McCain Biden. I would back that. I could vote for my party's candidate but I know even less about Bob Barr than I do about Gov. Palin. I like what libertarian stands for, small government, individual freedom, and especially states rights. It what this republic was founded on. 150 years ago if you could choose the best place for you by choosing the best state for you. It was a true republic. State govenors had power and legislatures made a difference in peoples lives. Now days, every state has become a slave to the federal goverment's purse and coffers. Does anyone know if any third parties are going to be involved in the debates this cycle? Anyway, I think this is a terrible pick for John McCain, and I predict we are all gonna find out more than we ever wanted to know about the Govenor of Alaska and that some if not most of it will show her to be a phony.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 5, 2008 at 3:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OutsiderJ, rereading my post/reply to your earlier post, please do not take it as a slam personally at your views. I was just trying to point out that no matter how hard a parent may try, and do everything "right", you cannot absolutely control what kids, especially teenagers, may do out of your presence, short of locking them in the basement. We can only try our best and hope it sinks in. Reminds me of awhile back when Al Gore's son was arrested for DUI & drug possession - it involved a high-speed police chase in his Prius, with speeds reaching 100mph. I never said a word about his parenting - I, like the media, was more impressed with the news that a hybrid Prius was capable of hitting 100mph.... LOL

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 5, 2008 at 3:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I understand what you are trying to say, OutsiderJ. Kind of like how its hard for me to take someone seriously as the leader of the USA when for 20 years they've attended a church that preaches hatred of the USA & whites.... I certainly hope Obama did not allow THOSE values to metriculate through his own family.....
Palin hasn't done any many interviews with the media until now because she wasn't the VP nominee until now. Kindof like nobody ever heard of Obama until that keynote speech in 2004. But you can bet she will now....
I love your idea of McCain/Biden, and then we could have an Obama/Palin debate. Great idea! Doubt it will happen, though.... seems like it would be a better match, experience-wise, to pair them up like that.... good thinking! :)
I've actually listened to an interview with Barr & was surprisingly impressed with some of his views. As I've stated earlier, I wish there was no party system, and everyone ran independent and got an equal chance....(sigh)...

Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on September 5, 2008 at 3:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Bob Barr's blog has something interesting that I have not seen anywhere else. It involves keeping Obama and McCain off of the gerneal election ballot in Texas because they violated Texas election law. I wonder why no one else has covered this. I also wonder how many other states this antiquated "two party system" idea has been late in filing.

Just a little food for thought
http://blog.bobbarr2008.com/2008/09/05/a...

I won't be 35 in time for the election so I guess I can't write myself in. I probably wouldn't win anyway, I mean there has never been a bachelor elected president. Other than that I think I would be perfect for the job. HaHa

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 5, 2008 at 4 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Interesting find, OutsiderJ.

Actually, James Buchanan was our only bachelor president, so if you join the Chinese gymnastics team, you can lie about your age and qualify.... LOL

Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on September 5, 2008 at 4:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

That's it. I'm going home to practice my cartwheel and back handspring...I'll probably get a gold in 2012. They'll let me win so they won't have to see me in a leotard (sp?) for very long. Does anyone know a good bikini waxer?

I guess I always thought that Buchanan was a widower. It was an assumption, but I thought a pretty good one. It is hard to imagine someone of that generation not marrying.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 5, 2008 at 4:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL....... :) I think you may have ruined the Olympics for me forever..... :)

Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on September 5, 2008 at 4:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

My routine would be across between Chris Farley's Chip-n-Dale routine on SNL and Borat's "banana hammock".
Talk about stick the landing. That alone should capture me the Whitehouse.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 5, 2008 at 4:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Probably come closer to getting you put on a terrorist watchlist - LOLOLOLOL :)

Posted by create (anonymous) on September 5, 2008 at 5:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OutsiderJ, I enjoyed reading your post. I certainly share some of your questions in my mind too. BTW, the only third party running I'm aware of is Ralph Nader. I'm guessing he will be included in the debates.

Good job, open_eyes, Obama's worth did increase with the sale of his books.

Jayhawker, Yes, McCain supports vouchers for parents, but parents can send their children to other schools now providing the school board in the new district accepts the new student. It isn't likely the district will turn down new students in view of state dollars received, as long as they do it by a certain date. At least that's how it is done around here.

McCain also supports Merit Pay; he just didn't use that term. Many educators have fought for merit pay, but just as many have fought against it. In the long run, it pits colleagues against each other. I've seen it happen. School should be where teachers go to teach. They should all be prepared to the nth degree. Those who don't measure up should be either counseled or sent to brush-up school, or dismissed. We should not accept slackers in our schools.

You're right, NCLB is the baby of Ted Kennedy. I love the NCLB and QPA. It's the best thing to happen to schools across this country because it makes schools accountable. Many teachers hated it because they said they couldn't be more creative or they couldn't use lessons they had had for years. That's not true. With only a little bit of work, I was able to turn all of my lessons that I had designed years previous into exactly what fit the model of State Standards and Benchmarks. I was on the original QPA committee, and later on the school improvement team. The only problem many educators had with being on those committees is that there was a great deal of intense work involved and many schools did not pay anything extra for the tons of time it took.

The only problem I have with NCLB is that it will require ALL students to score proficient or better by a certain year in the future. I think it's 2014. That's simply not possible. There are too many variables involved in the process of human learning. I believe that target date will change. But McCain didn't say anything about test scores, unless he meant merit pay for those teachers who can produce higher test scores. He didn't say. Time will tell. Bring on the debates!

Posted by netloafer (anonymous) on September 5, 2008 at 5:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Create

You said that "In the long run it (merit pay) pits colleagues against each other." You said you'd seen it happen.

I'd appreciate some insight. Are teachers undermining each other's work? Is the merit pay based on classroom performance? Are the merit dollars limited to just a few teachers in each school?

Most of us have been used to a system in which raises (merits) are based on performance reviews. I'm hard pressed to see how such a system would create unhealthy competition.

Posted by create (anonymous) on September 5, 2008 at 5:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Netloafer, regarding merit pay, no, teachers weren't undermining each others work. One example is that during the height of the merit pay controversy, some schools gave teachers who wore a suit everyday extra points. What does that have to do with teaching? Early in my career, I had a principal who marked me low on appearance because even though I wore a skirt/pants and a blouse to school everyday, he said he couldn't give me a high score because I did not wear a suit. In the meantime, my students' scores were improving, I was staying after school to tutor those who needed help, in other words, I was doing everything I could to be a good teacher -- except wear a suit.

Do you give extra points to the coach who wins a lot of games? Some schools were accused of that.

Currently in Kansas, teachers get points on how much education they have, how many workshops they have attended, that sort of thing. I like that better, don't you?

Posted by create (anonymous) on September 5, 2008 at 6:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jayhawker, since you mentioned Hawaii, I hope you enjoy this piece by Obama. I found it on the web site of the school he attended as a boy, Punahou School, a prep school originally built to accomodate the children of Congregational missionaries.

http://www.punahou.edu/uploaded/News_Con...

Posted by netloafer (anonymous) on September 5, 2008 at 7:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Create

Thx. It sounds more like a political than a performance based system

Posted by create (anonymous) on September 6, 2008 at 7:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Netloafer,

I don't understand what you mean. Teachers who attend workshops, for example, must then develop lesson plans and teach what they have learned at the workshop or they don't get the points they apply for. That sounds performance based to me.These points can eventually be used for moving forward on the salary schedule. Sorry if I wasn't more clear. BTW, if a coach wins a large percentage of games, is that performance based? Sounds like it is since that is his job although some may argue with that.

Perhaps you meant the wearing of suits. Then, yes, I'd agree with you.

Posted by netloafer (anonymous) on September 6, 2008 at 8:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Create

I was referring to the appearance issues. I agree with the elements that have to do with performance.

Any performance review I ever got was based on peformance and attaining operating goals. There were point values assigned to each element (productivity, service, cost, etc). There was a four point scale and merit raises were based on the total score (total points/total elements measured). Whether or not I wore a suit or other cosmetic elements had nothing to do with it.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 6, 2008 at 9:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Well, here we are, 2 days later, and no online article about Palin's or McCains speech, even though it turns out it was actually viewed by more people (got 1/2 point higher ratings) than Obama's. But Obama barely gets his last word said before we get Gazette articles talking about the "adoring crowd".... must have been referring to the Gazette staff...... Gosh, anyone have any inside info? Did their speeches get postponed till next week? Maybe some technical glitches/power outages? LOL......

Posted by glarson (Gwen Larson) on September 6, 2008 at 9:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

FYI, the Obama speech article was placed online the same night, taking the lead from an Associated Press article. AP characterized the crowds as adoring.

McCain's and Palin's AP stories didn't go up because this thread already existed and folks were already talking about their speeches.

No conspiracy involved. Sorry to disappoint those theorists.

Gwen Larson

Posted by netloafer (anonymous) on September 6, 2008 at 10:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Gwen

I'm no conspiracy theorist. I'm not even sure what to make of conspiracy theories.

You guys own and run the presses and you can print whatever you like. I do think your explanation is more than a bit thin, but I'm just one opinion. I would recommend that you not skate too much further, though. The ice could break.

Open_Eyes

The election is about two months away. There's plenty of time. Just be prepared for a real slobberknocker. As the poet aureate of my generation said, "The line is drawn and the curse is cast."

I started out as a Huckabee supporter, switched to Obama, and have now come full circle to becoming a McCain supporter. I have my reasons, which probably wouldn't suit a lot of folks. But, that's alright. They're not going into the voting booth with me. Neither Pat Kelley nor William Kristol will be pulling the lever for me. Just keep faith with you convictions. And, keep in mind that there are a lot of what conservative statesman Edmund Burke called "little platoons" out there. Finally, don't let the buzz in the background throw you off stride. Keep plugging away!

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 6, 2008 at 10:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh, I understand perfectly. There were plenty of already existing threads about Obama as well, whether or not anyone was adding comments, and there have been AP articles describing Palin's speech as "Star-Turning". But I haven't seen one online article in the Gazette about her or McCain's speech. Whether or not anyone is blogging/discussing it is not the point, apparently the Gazette didn't find either her nor McCain's speech newsworthy, at least online (I don't know about the printed version). It has nothing to do with whether or not people are/were commenting/blogging, just reporting. It has nothing to do with conspiracy, just bias.
I didn't realize the Gazette reported online only if people weren't already discussing it., I apologize for my misunderstanding . I guess you should lock everyone out of commenting the week before the election, because if there's a thread already discussing the election, then you won't feel any need to post an online story the next morning reporting who won, correct? (*smile*) :)

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 6, 2008 at 10:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Strange how I saw multiple articles on Tyson online even though people were already blogging/discussing each previous one. Oh well, probably because Tyson never publicly stated whether they were a liberal or conservative-leaning meat processing plant - LOL (althought I'm guessing conservative, since, just a total off-the-wall-guess of mine that has absolutely no factual basis, so please don't anyone be offended, vegetarians as a whole are more liberal than conservative...)

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 6, 2008 at 11:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

And sorry folks, no 2012 Olympics articles in the Gazette to look forward to, now that OutsiderJ has already given us details on his gold-medal performance routine, which has already been commented on.

Sorry, I'm on a roll, I just can't help myself. Sometimes I just gotta go drink some water to get over the giggles.... LOL

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 6, 2008 at noon (Suggest removal)

Gwen is a nice and credible lady, so if she says that there was no conscious decision to run accolades for Obama but not even run a story on McCain, I believe her. However, I think that it says something about the paper when reasonable people suspect that that is what they did.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 6, 2008 at 12:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It is nothing personal against Gwen - I'm sure she is a nice lady. It is more an observation on how most of today's media is no longer just an impartial, neutral reporter of news. You'd think media outlets could look around and see that all biased news orgs are continually losing market share to outlets that at least present both sides, but I guess once you get infected with the BHV (Bush Hatred Virus) - you lose much of the ability to see anything objectively anymore. Not all Americans are dumb enough to swallow everything the National Enquirer feeds us. The information is out there, and if you truly want to find it, you can. And when you find it, is it any wonder that you look back at the outlets that failed to report it, or buried it on page 47, and lose trust in them?

I think you pretty much summed it up, jayhawker, with the statement "run accolades for Obama but not even run a story on McCain".
That pretty much says it all.

Posted by create (anonymous) on September 7, 2008 at 7 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Well, you said the information is out there so this is what I found. I suppose you will say that the Los Angeles Times and the Associated Press are biased too.

I included the writer's credentials; they appear at the end. This is in more than one post because of character limitations.

The Anti-Obama Hate-Fest
by Robert Parry

The Republican Party, which has defined modern-day negative politics, was back at it again, bashing Barack Obama and the news media in an ugly display that rivaled the old days of Nixon-Agnew - or George W. Bush's last convention where GOP operatives passed out "Purple Heart Band-Aids" to mock John Kerry's war wounds.

After a slow start because of Hurricane Gustav, the convention in St. Paul, Minnesota, has turned into an anti-Obama hate-fest with a nearly all-white gathering laughing at and mocking the nation's first African-American presidential nominee of a major party.

However, beyond the pulsating contempt visible on the faces of the GOP delegates, many of the nasty attacks on Obama - as well as the effusive praise for the Republican ticket - were blatantly false, as if testing the depths of American gullibility and bigotry.

In speech after speech, Republicans didn't so much as tell the Big Lie as they deployed Wholesale Lies.

The Associated Press, which mostly had been recycling the Republican spin about the supposedly "maverick" ticket of John McCain and Sarah Palin, was so struck by the litany of distortions that the AP produced a special fact-checking article describing how Republicans had "stretched the truth."

For instance, Palin said about Obama, "it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform - not even in the state senate."

However, as the AP noted, Obama "worked with Republicans to pass legislation that expanded efforts to intercept illegal shipments of weapons of mass destruction and to help destroy conventional weapons stockpiles. The legislation became law last year."

Plus, the AP reported, "In Illinois, he was the leader on two big, contentious measures in Illinois: studying racial profiling by police and requiring recordings of interrogations in potential death penalty cases. He also successfully co-sponsored major ethics reform legislation."

The AP's fact-checking article noted, too, that former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee's slap at Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Biden - that Palin "got more votes running for mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, than Joe Biden got running for president of the United States" - was a "whopper."

The AP wrote that "Palin got 616 votes in the 1996 mayor's election, and got 909 in her 1999 re-election race, for a total of 1,525. Biden dropped out of the race after the Iowa caucuses, but he still got 76,165 votes in 23 states and the District of Columbia where he was on the ballot during the 2008 presidential primaries."

continued...

Posted by create (anonymous) on September 7, 2008 at 7:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Parallel Reality

The Republican National Convention also acted as if the Republicans had not controlled the White House for the past eight years and the Congress for most of that time.

"We need change, all right," declared former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, "change from a liberal Washington to a conservative Washington! We have a prescription for every American who wants change in Washington - throw out the big-government liberals, and elect John McCain and Sarah Palin."

Beyond this parallel universe of who runs Washington, there was fanciful puffery about the GOP "reformer" ticket - dubbed "maverick squared" - that doesn't square with reality at all.

For instance, the AP cited Palin's claim that "I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending ... and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. I told the Congress 'thanks but no thanks' for that Bridge to Nowhere."

The reality, of course, was much different.

As the AP noted. Palin, as mayor of the tiny town of Wasilla, hired a lobbyist and made annual treks to Washington seeking earmarked spending that totaled $27 million, and then as Alaska's governor for less than two years, she sought nearly $750 million in special federal spending, "by far the largest per-capita request in the nation."

And as for that $398 million bridge from Ketchikan to an island with 50 residents, the truth is that Palin enthusiastically supported the project before she reluctantly opposed it, rejecting the "Bridge to Nowhere" only after it had become politically indefensible.

The Los Angeles Times discovered that Sen. McCain had specifically cited several of Palin's earmarks on his annual list of wasteful pork-barrel spending.

In 2001, for instance, McCain's list included a $500,000 earmark for a public transportation project in Wasilla, and in 2002, he criticized $1 million targeted for an emergency communications center that Palin sought but local law enforcement said was redundant and a source of confusion.

continued...

Posted by create (anonymous) on September 7, 2008 at 7:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Remaking Palin

Now, however, Palin has been transformed into a maverick reformer. McCain's campaign even cites her experience as an abuser of the earmark process as part of the reason she supposedly understands why it must be scrapped.

McCain spokesman Taylor Griffin said Palin's successes in getting earmarked funds "was one of the formative experiences that led her toward the reform-oriented stance that she has taken as her career has progressed."

Nevertheless, Palin wrote in a newspaper column just this year that "the federal budget, in its various manifestations, is incredibly important to us, and congressional earmarks are one aspect of this relationship." [For more details, see Los Angeles Times, Sept. 3, 2008 ]

Beyond the GOP's reality-challenged speeches, there was the startling image of a nearly all-white convention - where only 36 of the 2,380 delegates were black, the smallest number in at least 40 years - rollicking in ridicule and bristling with animosity toward Obama, an African-American.

With their loud chants of "drill, baby, drill" regarding energy policy and boisterous shouts of "USA, USA" about "victory" in Iraq, there was a sense that St. Paul was hosting a convention of American Falangists, rather than that of a modern national party.

The whiff of authoritarianism extended to outside where demonstrators and journalists were swept off the streets in indiscriminate arrests.

What's less clear about the GOP convention is whether the Republicans are on to something, that perhaps the United States has crossed over into a post-rational society that cares little about facts and reality or serious policy ideas and respectful debate, but rather is a nation moved by anger and ridicule, fear and nationalism.

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush , was written with two of his sons, Sam and Nat, and can be ordered at neckdeepbook.com. His two previous books, Secrecy & Privilege: The Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq and Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth' are also available there

I suppose if we asked Gwen to publish that AP article he refers to that TEG would really by accused of bias.

Posted by netloafer (anonymous) on September 7, 2008 at 8:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Create

Each candidate is going to use wedges. The Democrats have dispatched fifty lawyers to Alaska. I don't think they're going to be fishing for salmon. Panning for political gold is probably more like it.

I may not like it, any more than you like the stories dug up on Obama, but it is going to happen. As the saying goes, politics ain't beanbag.

Yesterday, for example, I read a piece from A.P. about Sarah Palin's "pentecostal roots." My take on it was that it was derisive and meant to play to the Democratic base. I'm sure that part of my take is based on my Pentecostalism. My roots, however, are Episcopal. I like to think of it as a marriage of beliefs on transcendence and immanence.

Here's a link to the A.P piece:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jCeGg...

Here's an early quote:

"Sarah Palin often identifies herself simply as Christian.

Yet John McCain's running mate has deep roots in Pentecostalism, a spirit-filled Christian tradition that is one of the fastest growing in the world. It's often derided by outsiders and Bible-believers alike."

Fair? Perhaps your take is different than mine.

I read a piece from Peggy Noonan yesterday titled "A Servant's Heart," an op-ed. It was quite interesting. The link follows:

http://www.peggynoonan.com/

One of the things she expressed was a sense of foreboding about this election cycle:

Here's what I think is the money quote:

"I am worried they won’t. A friend IM’d the day after Palin’s speech, and I told him of an inexplicable sense of foreboding. He surprised me by saying he shared it. “Calling all underworlds reporting for duty!,” he wrote. “The bed is about to fly around the room, the puke is about to come out.” He meant: this campaign is going to engage unseen powers and forces. He meant: this campaign, this beautiful golden thing with two admirable men at the top and two admirable vice presidential candidates, is going to turn dark."

I share Peggy's concern. I think you do as well. But, please don't think that this nastiness is going to be a one way street. The Democrats are dispatching those fifty lawyers to dig up dirt. I'm sure Republican operatives are doing the same thing.

This has all been a part of American politics from our beginnings. The press of Lincoln's day called him a "monkey." There was no love lost between John Quincy Adams and Thomas Jefferson. We've had Thomas Eagleton (I still believe a real tragedy/travesty), Vince Foster, the Rose law firm billing records. We've had Herbert Hoover, an eminently decent man, excoriated by the Democrats and the press. We've had John Kennedy's Roman Catholicism attacked. This is, unfortunately, politics in America.

I'm trying my best to tune out the noise and chatter. I've made my choice and it will be my choice when I enter the voting booth. Until then I will advociate for my candidate and his positions. That's all I can do.

Posted by netloafer (anonymous) on September 7, 2008 at 9:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Create

One correction. The Adams I meant to refer to was John Adams rather than his son John Quincy Adams.

Posted by create (anonymous) on September 7, 2008 at 10:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Netloafer,

Are you saying those lawyers are going to dig up dirt that does not exist? If the dirt is there, let them find it. And I mean that for both parties. The American people need to see any and all dirty laundry, especially if any of it relates to the issues.

You've made your choice and so have I. But many others have not. And that's what politicking is all about. You've been there. Did you stop making speeches at the very beginning of your own campaign or did you continue to try to convince voters for as long as you could speak?

As far as religion is concerned, I like what Joe Biden said on Meet the Press this morning when asked about his Catholic background and the pro-choice stance of his party. He said his Catholicism is a matter of personal faith and as such, he doesn't believe he should expect the rest of the country to believe as he does. I'm paraphrasing.

My own roots are Catholic, but I embrace the teachings of Buddhism. My oldest daughter is devout in her Evangelical beliefs. My youngest distances herself from religion all together. The rule in my family is we never discuss religion. Ever. I'm like Joe Biden, religion is a matter of personal faith. I don't care what Sarah Palin's religion is, but if she uses that belief system to govern, then I will oppose it. I care about issues.

I didn't say this "nastiness" was going to be a one-way street. You paint me as some kind of naive girl. Please don't do that.

Thanks for the history lesson.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 8, 2008 at 12:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

My point is:

Nobody denies there is nastiness being thrown by both sides, lies, smears, innuendos, etc.... some true, some false, some "spun", etc...

Problem is, any question of Obama is ignored by mainstream liberal media. Aside from Fox. Sure, we have our smaller blogs and reporters out there, from both sides, but the big media outlets seem to protect Obama. If you think it's all conservatives complaining about the soft treatment, then why the SNL skit where reporters gave Obama a pillow while hammering away at Hillary? Why did she herself complain about the disparity in treatment? Last time I checked, she was neither a Republican nor a conservative.

You're right. American politics have moved from being a debate over facts and policy and into one ruled by emotion and anger.

You cite the books about the "Disastrous presidency of Bush". Is that a fact? Or is that opinion? Although I disagree with much, and see plenty of mistakes made, I don't consider it a disaster. I could write a book about the successes of the Bush presidency. The Taliban seriously wounded, no attacks on the US in 8 years, many, many plots uncovered and stopped, some very good economic growth & prosperity gotten back on track after the hit of 9/11, Libya giving up WMD's, undoing part of the damage done by Clinton allowing North Korea to get their nuke program far advanced, etc...

But the mainstream media downplays all that and/or ignores it, or, gives the credit to anyone and everyone except Bush. I'm not saying he's wonderful, just saying many in America do NOT view the last 8 years as a "total disaster". Actually, since his approval rating is now nearly 3 times that of congress, I would rate our current congress much more of a "total disaster" than the Bush presidency. Where's the book on that?

Do you really buy the excuse that, although an article on Obama's speech was immediately printed and glorified in the Gazette, the only reason McCain's was not is because there was already a thread where people were blogging about it? REALLY? Even though there were plenty of existing threads about both candidates? Do you really, seriously, ever stop and think about why there has been such a glaring ommission? I'll bet anyone here money, had the Palin/McCain speeches went over very poorly, and not had higher ratings than Obamas, the Gazette would have printed an article criticizing them. Regardless of whether there were any "existing threads"....

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 8, 2008 at 12:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Reading thru the article you posted:

"The pulsating contempt visible on their faces" - is that a fact? Did you see any? McCain himself started out honoring Obama in his speech - does that sound like "pulsating contempt"? I watched the speech, and the faces of the delegates - I saw cheering, but no "pulsating" that I could detect. How about the "adoring" crowds in Denver? Do you think I could write an article about how every time they cheered something Obama would say negative about McCain or Bush or the GOP that I could describe the delegates faces as showing "pulsating contempt"? Can you truly not see thru the biased opinion and emotion of the writer of that article?
You did some digging. Good. I'll bet you can find writers that talk about blatant lies that the Democrats tell - but, unfortunately, you won't find many of them in the big mainstream media outlets, other than Fox. Does that tell you something?
Huckabee's remark about Palin getting more votes than Biden: They were laughing about that on Fox News the other night. Alan Colmes asked him straight out if he meant that or if he was speaking metaphorically, he laughed and said good grief, of course he was speaking metaphorically, They all had a good laugh about it. And someone writing an article about that would have been able to figure that out, had they not had an impartial agenda which colored, tainted, and skewed their reporting.
You mentioned that you "supposed we would say the Los Angeles Times and AP are biased, too". Well, actually, I'll let someone else say it - in a study at UCLA, the LA Times was rated the 4th most liberal news outlet:

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Med...

"Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.
Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter."

18 out of 20 to the left. By UCLA. Is it any wonder, if you search thru mainstream media articles, you will find many, many more slamming conservatives than you will find slamming liberals? Simple math. 18 out of 20 = 90% left of center.

So who do we believe? I know one thing for sure - I didn't see any "pulsating contempt" on GOP delegates - rather, I saw the exact same expressions I saw on Democratic delegates. And any "news" article that starts out with that much emotional innuendo is obviously not taking an objective view...

Posted by nitewing207 (anonymous) on September 8, 2008 at 12:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Her daughter should not be an issue or effect her running. There is another person running for an office now that has a child that did something horrible a while back. Yet people are not bringing that up or using it against them. What their children do has nothing to do with them running for office.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 8, 2008 at 12:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You said "If the dirt is there, let them find it. And I mean that for both parties. The American people need to see any and all dirty laundry".

I TOTALLY agree with you. 100%.

But what you seem to fail to see, is that dirty laundry against Obama & Biden is brushed aside or not reported by most media. As Hillary/SNL complained, "they ask him if he's comfortable and offer him a pillow" (I paraphrase). Only after Fox hammers on it for a day or 2 does the rest of the media get involved, and then, seemingly, very grudgingly. And while they do it, they complain about conservative attacks. But, it's perfectly fine to complain about conservative attacks, while dispatching 50 lawyers and ripping Palin up one side & down the other for ever breath she takes, including just being a woman and a mother. Go back and see some of the glowing things reported about Ferrarro when she was the VP nominee. She was praised for many of the exact same things, by the left, that they are attacking Palin for. Sound balanced & fair to you? Or have things regarding being a woman VP candidate changed 180 degrees from 20 years ago?

Both sides are forever going to attack the other, throw mud, and complain when mud is thrown at them. Fine. I understand that. That is politics. But when the media takes sides, and overwhelmingly only reports views and opinions from 1 side, then I kinda get the feeling we're living in China or Russia, where the media is controlled by the Communist government. Honestly. Ask yourself honestly why no story about McCain/Palin's speeches. Bigger viewing audience than Obama's, yet we got a cheerleader article about Obama immediately, but zero on McCain. Do - you - truly - honestly - think, that it was just because there was a thread discussing it? I guarantee there will be active threads discussing the election right up to that night, so don't expect to open the Gazette the next morning and see any coverage reporting who won.... LOL

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 8, 2008 at 12:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Did you read the link I posted earlier on this thread about earmarks by the candidates? After reading that, I'm sure we could print some articles about the Obama tickets claims about earmarks and then state "The reality, of course, was much different"..... but you won't see that in the mainstream media. Why? Plenty of articles could be written that would amount to being the exact mirror image of the ones you posted, but you won't find them unless you dig deep. And they won't be by the major media outlets. At least not by 18 of the 20. Again, when you wonder why, do the math. It's not pretty. If I wanted to live in a society where the news was controlled, I'd move to a Communist country. Living in a society where the majority of the news is skewed and biased isn't a whole lot different, as far as the news goes. It makes it tough to sift thru and see what is honest reporting and what is that reporter's opinion. But at least when they talked about "pulsating contempt" on faces, they make it easier for intelligent people to see thru the bias...

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 8, 2008 at 1:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

And finally, (I apologize for being so long-winded, but this is my last of the night) - create, "but if she uses that belief system to govern