Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on May 30, 2008 at 3:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Very good article, Doug, and thanks for your contribution. It has upset me greatly at how poorly some of us have treated President Bush, who is a good man trying to do the job consistently with his principles. I have to admit, however, that when President Clinton was in office that I displayed some of the same behaviors toward him. I am not proud of that. Although for the good of the country I hope that John McCain wins, I suspect that Obama will be the next president. If so, I am going to work very hard at treating him fairly. That is not to say that I won't disagree with him, but I am not going to join in with some who will undoubtedly smear him, just as some did Presidents Clinton and Bush. For the good of our country, we need to listen to people like Doug McGaw who, even though I suspect that I am on the opposite end of the spectrum from him, we can all learn from.

Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on May 30, 2008 at 5:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Smear machine on the far right? You MUST be joking. Compared to the vicious trash being spewed forth by the left wing radical socialist Democrats, the conservatives seem like little Bo Peep. Don't believe everything Rosie O'Donnell and Sean Penn say, Mr. McGaw.

That being said, I also disagree with false accusations being spread via the internet by radical idiots. Obama is not a Muslim nor is he anti-American. He has more than enough flaws without making them up. He is an admitted socialist, a black libertarian, an out-of-touch elitist, and a typical power-hungry career politician unfit and unqualified to run our nation, but he is not an inherently bad man.

Just once I would like to see the biased liberal left-wing Gazette print something fair and balanced concerning the race for President. Your job is to print the news sans bias or predjudice, not slant it to fit your personal agenda or views.

Perhaps that is why half of Emporians, including me, don't subscribe to The Emporia Democrat.

Posted by shoehorn (anonymous) on May 30, 2008 at 6 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree that we need to get past the partisan politics, and openly and honestly discuss the true facts about many issues. Besides, how do you know the e-mail wasn't from the Clinton camp? (sorry, just couldn't pass on that) :)

Posted by eldiablo (anonymous) on May 31, 2008 at 11:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Bjnemp,

The Presiden't approval rating is 27%. If you want to read a column supporting the president, subscribe to the Washington Post.

Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on May 31, 2008 at 6:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Eldiablo: Nope. The post is a right wing mouthpiece as the Emporia Democrat is a left wing mouthpiece. I just want true, unbiased, professional reporting of information; not propoganda.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on May 31, 2008 at 10:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Actually, the Washington Post is considered to be perhaps the third most liberal newspaper in the country (behind the New York Times and the San Francisco Chronicle), although some argue that the Los Angeles Times is just as liberal as the Post. The Washington Times, which is a small paper with few subscribers, is a conservative newspaper.

Posted by under_score (anonymous) on June 5, 2008 at 10:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks for the article Doug. Just so I understand this, I shouldn't believe what I read in chain emails? That could explain why I've never recieved all of those gift certificates from Microsoft yet.

Only politics of fear or trust???? That's just dumb. So if a politician wants to pass legislation that I don't agree with, say universal health care for instance, that falls into which category? I fear that it would be disastrous but I should simply trust? I don't know who Ed Muskie is but he's full of crap.

This is why I'm against programs that promote people to just go out and vote. Please, if you haven't taken the time to research the candidates or the issues, DO NOT vote. Only uninformed individuals fall into the category that would be influenced by the "Politics of Fear".

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on June 5, 2008 at 11:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ed Muskie was a liberal US Senator from Maine who was the 1968 Democratic Vice Presidential nominee with Hubert Humphrey. They lost to Richard Nixon. Muskie was the front runner for the 1972 Democratic presidential nomination until he had a mental breakdown in New Hampshire when he started crying while making a speech.

under_score makes an excellent point. Voting is serious business. Although it irresponsible not to vote, it is even more irresponsible to vote if you aren't informed.

Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on June 5, 2008 at 1:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well stated, jayhawker and under_score. I fear millions of Americans vote based strictly on party affiliation or because they like someone's appearance. The more truly informed voters we get to the polls, the better politicians we will hire.

Posted by bdprotheroe (anonymous) on June 6, 2008 at 3:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/06/06/psy...

Posted by bdprotheroe (anonymous) on June 6, 2008 at 5:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

A brilliant quote from the 1995 movie "The American President." How fitting it is for our current election year.

"America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can't just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the "land of the free"." -- Michael Douglas as President Andrew Shepard

Posted by bdprotheroe (anonymous) on June 6, 2008 at 5:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Another brilliant quote from the same movie, exemplifying Mr. McGraw's point of instead of giving in to tactics of fear, we should engage ourselves in fact-based research and conversations to better understand our politicians and learn why/how their opinions have been formed.

"For the last couple of months, Senator Rumson has suggested that being president of this country was, to a certain extent, about character, and although I have not been willing to engage in his attacks on me, I've been here three years and three days, and I can tell you without hesitation: Being President of this country is entirely about character. For the record: yes, I am a card-carrying member of the ACLU. But the more important question is why aren't you, Bob? Now, this is an organization whose sole purpose is to defend the Bill of Rights, so it naturally begs the question: Why would a senator, his party's most powerful spokesman and a candidate for President, choose to reject upholding the Constitution?" -- Michael Douglas as President Andrew Shepard

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on June 6, 2008 at 6:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The ACLU's true agenda has nothing at all to do with the Bill of Rights. It's true agenda is to promote left wing causes through the courts because they can't get it done through the ballot box. Is anyone surprised that Hollywood would glorify the ACLU?

Posted by bdprotheroe (anonymous) on June 6, 2008 at 6:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It was an example of constructive dialogue, only. You can replace "ACLU" with any other timely issue/topic. On a side note, thank you jayhawker for demonstrating how we as citizens have resorted to name calling and fear tactics. I rest my case.

Posted by bdprotheroe (anonymous) on June 6, 2008 at 6:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Everyone has different ideas, opinions and viewpoints, even from those whom we perceive as most like ourselves. In order for us to move forward, we have to set aside labels, fears. We must make an effort to learn from one another, how and why we all have differing viewpoints. Then, and only then, can we seek out compromise... because we will have learned how much we actually have in common.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on June 6, 2008 at 6:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Perhaps you can identify for me where I have said anything like that, bdprotheroe? I suspect that you have me confused with someone else.

Posted by bdprotheroe (anonymous) on June 7, 2008 at 6:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thank you for the response, jayhawker. I’ll be happy to have this discussion with you. This is not an attempt to point out fault, simply to point how we can eliminate from our speech words with strong connotations that only serve the add fuel to the fire rather than to induce understanding, reasoning and collective compromise.

You stated, “(The ACLU)'s true agenda is to promote left wing causes through the courts because they can't get it done through the ballot box. Is anyone surprised that Hollywood would glorify the ACLU?”

Left wing, right wing. Red fish, blue fish. Just because one person takes to heart an issue that might not be of importance to another, doesn’t mean the issue doesn’t have worth. Using terms “left” and “right” typically implies dismissal.

We, as a country, have become victims of the media. Having worked in the industry of public relations (my former CEO was Hillary’s chief strategist, and my market leader became the leading strategist for McCain’s California campaign), I’ve learned how many (not all) professionals within the industry tend to be spin doctors of the truth, using every opportunity to overshadow important details and instead make quick use of headlines to advance the candidate’s profile while unfairly tarnishing the other. We, the readers, fall for the headlines without digging in for the details. The media knows that and attempts to capitalize upon it.

This is just an example, so please do set your political affiliations aside. Friday’s USA Today (okay, so NOT the most credible newspaper in print) says this about McCain. “(McCain) proceeded to say the Democrat (Obama) was too far out of touch with Americans and not ready for the White House… describing him as a novice who believe in ‘big government’ and ‘doesn’t understand.’” So, to the average reader (perhaps one who tends to vote GOP), is going to dismiss Obama without having indulged in facts-based research. What the reader should do, is ask, “well, what does McCain mean by “big government,” has Obama given examples of “big government” and if he has, how and why would these policies benefit and/or harm the nation?”

More to come...

Posted by bdprotheroe (anonymous) on June 7, 2008 at 6:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Continuing…

Perhaps Senator McCain had more to say during that speech, but the media didn’t report it. And, perhaps Senator McCain wanted to say more, but his PR strategist kept him from speaking his mind and instead wrote the speech for him. We become the fools (you and I) for only reading what is in the headlines. I become heated thinking John McCain is a creep who misconstrues Obama’s platform, and someone who already supports John McCain becomes inspired thinking the senator is a leader. In the end, the American people lose, and the party that wins in November gets bragging rights while the PR team gets a big bonus check.

To that end, I like to quote a favored elected official, GOP Senator Hagel of Nebraska, “To question your government is not unpatriotic — to not question your government is unpatriotic.”

Sure, I am registered as a Democrat as I tend to relate closer to the party’s platform, but I am proud to say that I have never voted for a straight ticket.

On a side note, of my favorite American presidents (I have an addiction for history and biographies), two were Democrats (FDR and Truman), and two were Republican (Lincoln and Eisenhower). Does that mean I agreed with 100% of their decisions, no.

I look forward to having a president (as well as a Congress full of elected officials and a Supreme Court) who is bi-partisan, takes into consideration the viewpoints and opinions and goals and dreams of all Americans, and ultimately upholds the Constitution. Moderate, well-balanced, level-headed and puts his/her country before political affiliations. The reason there has been such loud protest during the Bush administration is because he has refused to listen to, at least respectively recognize, the so-called left-wing. We have to agree to disagree, as well as compromise. None of us are going to get our way 100% of the time. As soon as we realize, and we decide we want harmony rather than red-state blue-state strife, the US will actually be stronger and will prosper... eventually become more respected in the world as we were in the 20th Century.

Posted by bdprotheroe (anonymous) on June 7, 2008 at 6:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I, too, am guilty of the "us vs. them" mentality. Because I am exhausted of the American family-feud, I am doing my part to watch what I say and respect viewpoints without using terms that are offensive to those with differeing viewpoints. We must end this unwinable political game, and we cannot wait for our party leaders to be the "good example." We have to be the good examples, and then they will change their rhetoric.

While living in Kansas, I felt like a liberal because of the political atmosphere at home, and sense I've lived in California I've felt more like a Republican. "Get out of the tree so they can chop it down, we have more important things to worry about."

I find, I am ready for a middle ground that everyone in this country can at least agree to. I am tired of the bickering. My views are too liberal for Kansas, and they are too conservative for California. I'd like to be able to live anywhere in this country where we can all get along and not feel defensive about our poltical views.

Aren't all of you ready for the same?

Posted by bdprotheroe (anonymous) on June 7, 2008 at 7:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So, at the end of the day, we must conform to these rules of thought; respect for diversity of opinion, and ability to not fall victim to nonsense.

In this presidential election, we must be able to say to McCain and Obama, "Enough is enough. Quit attacking the other candidate, and tell us the details of YOUR plans for the future. We're not going to listen to your hired-help of PR strategists. We do have the intelligence to weigh the real and honest facts, and ultimately make a decision based upon your own words without any interference or smear."

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on June 7, 2008 at 8:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

bdprotheroe, if you feel comfortable doing so, would you mind contacting me at jayhawker76@yahoo.com? Thanks.

Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on June 7, 2008 at 11:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Amen, Bdprotheroe: I don't want to hear personal attacks or a barrage of negatives. I want honest dialogue on the issues and each candidate's plans to fix our numerous problems. We don't need to elect a politician; we need to hire a leader.

Posted by USNretired (anonymous) on June 8, 2008 at 12:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Quoting from movies to prove a point is problematic at best and infantile at worst. Think for yourself and speak for yourself. Do your homework and find out the facts and don't let anyone tell you who you "must" vote for. Some of these groups that give voting "advice" are the some people who buy up oil futures in order to influence elections in countries they are not even citizens of. They are looking out for themselves and their country, not ours. Even your best friend does not share every value and concern and we all have private family matters we do not discuss outside of our homes, that is human nature and we all see the world a little differently. Ask anyone who has raised children to adulthood.

Posted by MrCmonkeeDo (anonymous) on June 8, 2008 at 1:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

That was beautiful Bd...MrC always appreciates yer words.

November is five months away; that's plenty of time for peeps to make up their minds as to which candidate they would send to the W.H. Most assuredly many minds will change.

Wouldn't it be a treat if We could make up Our minds without someone shouting "verbal garbage" at us constantly?

Posted by bdprotheroe (anonymous) on June 8, 2008 at 2:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Just last evening, I was having this same conversation with a small group of friends. Again, having worked in PR, I know how many of these professionals are trained to manipulate thought, with their eloquent use of words and tactics they have a funny way of telling the American people what to think, how to think and what should be most important to them during an election year. Whether a product, a company, an issue or a candidate, they are hired to convince the reader/consumer/voter that there is only one right way to think.

In retrospect, I guess it's just another reason that I left the PR industry because I didn't agree with their tactics. A conflict of interests, and I no longer wanted to be associated.