[Masthead] Mostly Cloudy ~ 62°F  
Wind Advisory
Monday, Nov. 24, 2014

Presidential election and media

Posted Tuesday, October 28, 2008, at 3:34 PM

What are your thoughts on all of the media coverage and handling of all the presidential primaries from waaaaaay back when until now?

I've been tired and worn out with all of it for several months.

Accusations and counter-accusations, some of them ridiculous and practrically all of them half-truths at best, have done absolutely nothing to enhance my thoughts on either candidate except to convince me that surely the United States should have come up with better candidates to lead our nation.

Has the media handled all of this fairly and unbiased or subjected us to too much ridiculous ranting?

Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]

I feel the media has been extremely biased. So many things have been overlooked from one candidate that would have destroyed another. It is sickening.

Ultimatley no matter who wins, God is in control and we should not put our faith in a president but in God alone.

-- Posted by titanup1 on Tue, Oct 28, 2008, at 4:00 PM

I think, as I have written, one of the greatest dangers facing our great country is the mainstream media's bias to the left. By omission, attention and placement of news items they seek to fashion the thought patterns of the populace. They have long since moved off the Op-ed pages with their editoral biases and their reporting has been reduced to propaganda of the worst kind rather that the vision of our Founders to inform and let the people draw their own opinion.

Their are many, many instances happening daily. Perhaps the best example is when the 3 major networks anchor's, unappolojetically, traveled on the same plane with Obama when he traveled to Iraq, with stops and events in Israel and Germany. Can anyone cite one time, or even imagine, when all three, or maybe even one, was on McCain's plane?

-- Posted by cmcclanahan on Tue, Oct 28, 2008, at 4:02 PM

amen titanup1 I feel the same way. I'm letting God handle the new President.

-- Posted by bellbuckletn on Tue, Oct 28, 2008, at 4:55 PM

I agree there has been a lean to the left. And projecting the length of the next primary season to be longer than '08, sometime next year we should be starting up again for '12.

-- Posted by cfder on Tue, Oct 28, 2008, at 4:57 PM

The news media has duped the american people by not telling them the truth about Obama and by the time the people find out, it's going to be to late and he will be our next President. Then we all will have to live with what he does for next 4 years.

-- Posted by bellbuckletn on Tue, Oct 28, 2008, at 5:06 PM

The mainstream media definitely does not lean to the far left. It represents only a moderate view and continually looks to the right to determine what moderate is. If you are asking if they favor one candidate over another, or one of the two parties over another at any given time, I think that yes they do. I was actually surprised to see the arguably fair treatment given to McCain this year, as so many in the media have been burned by the republicans in the last 8 years.

-- Posted by memyselfi on Tue, Oct 28, 2008, at 5:52 PM

memyselfi, I think you are looking at the media through rose colored glasses. Your filter may not detect a left leaning since you are already there, but for those of a more conservative bent the bias seems obvious.

-- Posted by devan on Tue, Oct 28, 2008, at 6:04 PM

devan, I look at the media through the only color glasses that accurately represent their actions...green. The media is not red or blue, nor is that their purpose, at least in my opinion. For example, there is much discourse about either candidate's healthcare plans and the pros and cons of each, but neither plan addresses the most serious problems, nor does the media. Where is the voice saying "These medical businesses should not enjoy the protections of the government while the people pay exuberant prices?" Another issue is free trade and the global economy. Where is the voice saying "We do not think it is right to intervene in other nations economies and fight wars to benefit business with our treasure"? Where is the voice anywhere expressing problems with USNORTHCOM? Where is the outrage from the condition of the US job market and the policies that created said condition to the benefit of business? I will tell you where those opinions and many more are not, that is the mainstream media. The mainstream media give the same narrow world-view as do our elections. Any dissenting voice is marginalized and dismissed.

-- Posted by memyselfi on Tue, Oct 28, 2008, at 6:28 PM

All I am saying is that your opinion about where the media leans is determined by where you are on the political spectrum. It is quite obvious that you are already to the left of the media so from that vantage point the media doesn't appear to have the same bias as someone who looks at it from the right. If there are any centrists left maybe we could ask them.

-- Posted by devan on Tue, Oct 28, 2008, at 6:38 PM

Maybe I didn't say that right, I was not trying to be aggressive in my comment, but after reading it, I saw how it may have read that way. I was just trying to explain that I thought the major media outlets were in general owned by capitol, and generate their income from capitol. Therefore, I see most of their actions in that light. I understand you were not attacking me, and I did understand what you were writing. I was not at all offended.

-- Posted by memyselfi on Tue, Oct 28, 2008, at 6:47 PM

memyselfi - hahahahahahahahahahahaha! Not biased! NOT

-- Posted by cherokee2 on Tue, Oct 28, 2008, at 7:10 PM

memyselfi . . . I usually lean to the left and even I can see the bias that has been show in the media and that has turned me off on Obama because he has been more hype than actual substance.

-- Posted by jaxspike on Tue, Oct 28, 2008, at 7:34 PM

jaxspike, Bias given to Obama does not necessarily equate to far left bias to me. Obama is not far left, at least as far as I can tell. He is at best a moderate, as is his opponent. It is easy to believe the media claiming Obama to be a socialist and McCain to favor business over the common people, and to accept that they are so far apart that one will necessarily destroy this country, but when you look at their policies closely, there is not much difference that I can see. McCain got a great media bump with Palin, and in the last week, this redistribution thing has played well for that campaign. I do not think situations like that should be discounted. For that matter, where was the coverage of the protests at the RNC? Where was the voice of those people? They had virtually no voice and the RNC had domination of the airwaves filling virtually every second of time with propaganda and rhetoric. Does that sound far left to you?

-- Posted by memyselfi on Tue, Oct 28, 2008, at 8:06 PM

Letter from Anne Kilkenny:

So many people have asked me about what I know about Sarah Palin in the last 2 days that I decided to write something up . . .

You may distribute it to your friends/email list with my name and email address attached, but I'm NOT willing to have it posted on a webpage with my name and email address attached (there's too many kooks out there!)

Bottomline: the only thing Sarah Palin has in common with Hillary Clinton is her gender and good looks.



I am a resident of Wasilla, Alaska. I have known Sarah since 1992. Everyone here knows Sarah, so it is nothing special to say we are on a first-name basis. Our children have attended the same schools. Her father was my child's favorite substitute teacher. I also am on a first name basis with her parents and mother-in-law. I attended more City Council meetings during her administration than about 99% of the residents of the city.

She is enormously popular; in every way she's like the most popular girl in middle school. Even men who think she is a poor choice and won't vote for her can't quit smiling when talking about her because she is a "babe".

It is astonishing and almost scary how well she can keep a secret. She kept her most recent pregnancy a secret from her children and parents for seven months.

She is "pro-life". She recently gave birth to a baby with Down syndrome. There is no cover-up involved, here; Trig is her baby.

She is energetic and hardworking. She regularly worked out at the gym. She is savvy. She doesn't take positions; she just "puts things out there" and if they prove to be popular, then she takes credit.

Her husband works a union job on the North Slope for BP and is a champion snowmobile racer. Todd Palin's kind of job is highly sought-after because of the schedule and high pay. He arranges his work schedule so he can fish for salmon in Bristol Bay for a month or so in summer, but by no stretch of the imagination is

fishing their major source of income. Nor has her life-style ever been anything like that of native Alaskans.

Sarah and her whole family are avid hunters.

She's smart.

Her experience is as mayor of a city with a population of about 5,000(at the time), and less than 2 years as governor of a state with about 670,000 residents.

During her mayoral administration most of the actual work of running this small city was turned over to an administrator. She had been pushed to hire this administrator by party power-brokers after she had gotten herself into some trouble over precipitous firings which had given rise to a recall campaign.

Sarah campaigned in Wasilla as a "fiscal conservative". During her 6 years as Mayor, she increased general government expenditures by over

33%. During those same 6 years the amount of taxes collected by the City increased by 38%. This was during a period of low inflation (1996-2002).

She reduced progressive property taxes and increased a regressive sales tax which taxed even food. The tax cuts that she promoted benefited large corporate property owners way more than they benefited residents.

The huge increases in tax revenues during her mayoral administration weren't enough to fund everything on her wish list though, borrowed money was needed, too. She inherited a city with zero debt, but left it with indebtedness of over $22 million. What did Mayor Palin encourage the voters to borrow money for? Was it the infrastructure that she said she supported? The sewage treatment plant that the city lacked? or a new library? No. $1m for a park. $15m-plus for construction of a multi-use sports complex which she rushed through to build on a piece of property that the City didn't even have clear title to, that was still in litigation 7 yrs later--to the delight of the lawyers involved! The sports complex itself is a nice addition to the community but a huge money pit, not the profit-generator she claimed it would be. She also supported bonds for $5.5m for road projects that could have been done in

5-7 yrs without any borrowing.

While Mayor, City Hall was extensively remodeled and her office redecorated more than once.

These are small numbers, but Wasilla is a very small city.

As an oil producer, the high price of oil has created a budget surplus in Alaska. Rather than invest this surplus in technology that will make us energy independent and increase efficiency, as Governor she proposed distribution of this surplus to every individual in the state.

In this time of record state revenues and budget surpluses, she recommended that the state borrow/bond for road projects, even while she proposed distribution of surplus state revenues: spend today's surplus, borrow for needs.

She's not very tolerant of divergent opinions or open to outside ideas or compromise. As Mayor, she fought ideas that weren't generated by her or her staff. Ideas weren't evaluated on their merits, but on the basis of who proposed them.

While Sarah was Mayor of Wasilla she tried to fire our highly respected City Librarian because the Librarian refused to consider removing from the library some books that Sarah wanted removed. City residents rallied to the defense of the City Librarian and against Palin's attempt at out-and-out censorship, so Palin backed down and withdrew her termination letter. People who fought her attempt to oust the Librarian are on her enemies list to this day.

Sarah complained about the "old boy's club" when she first ran for Mayor, so what did she bring Wasilla? A new set of "old boys". Palin fired most of the experienced staff she inherited. At the City and as

Governor she hired or elevated new, inexperienced, obscure people, creating a staff totally dependent on her for their jobs and eternally grateful and fiercely loyal--loyal to the point of abusing their power to further her personal agenda, as she has acknowledged happened in the case of pressuring the State's top cop (see below).

As Mayor, Sarah fired Wasilla's Police Chief because he "intimidated" her, she told the press. As Governor, her recent firing of Alaska's top cop has the ring of familiarity about it. He served at her pleasure and she had every legal right to fire him, but it's pretty clear that an important factor in her decision to fire him was because he wouldn't fire her sister's ex-husband, a State Trooper. Under investigation for abuse of power, she has had to admit that more than 2 dozen contacts were

made between her staff and family to the person that she later fired, pressuring him to fire her ex-brother-in-law. She tried to replace the man she fired with a man who she knew had been reprimanded for sexual harassment; when this caused a public furor, she withdrew her support.

She has bitten the hand of every person who extended theirs to her in help. The City Council person who personally escorted her around town introducing her to voters when she first ran for Wasilla City Council became one of her first targets when she was later elected Mayor. She abruptly fired her loyal City Administrator; even people who didn't like the guy were stunned by this ruthlessness.

Fear of retribution has kept all of these people from saying anything publicly about her.

When then-Governor Murkowski was handing out political plums, Sarah got the best, Chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission: one of the few jobs not in Juneau and one of the best paid. She had no background in oil & gas issues. Within months of scoring this great job which paid $122,400/yr, she was criticizing her pay as too high in the press. I was told that she hated that job: the commute, the structured hours, the work. Sarah became aware that a member of this Commission(who was also the State Chair of the Republican Party) engaged in unethical behavior on the job. In a gutsy move which some undoubtedly cautioned her could be political suicide, Sarah solved all her problems in one fell swoop: got out of the job she hated and garnered gobs of media attention as the patron saint of ethics and as a gutsy fighter against the "old boys' club" when she dramatically quit, exposing this man's ethics violations (for which he was fined).

As Mayor, she had her hand stuck out as far as anyone for pork from Senator Ted Stevens. Lately, she has castigated his pork-barrel politics and publicly humiliated him. She only opposed the "bridge to nowhere" after it became clear that it would be unwise not to.

As Governor, she gave the Legislature no direction and budget guidelines, then made a big grandstand display of line-item vetoing projects, calling them pork. Public outcry and further legislative action restored most of these projects--which had been vetoed simply because she was not aware of their importance--but with the unobservant she had gained a reputation as "anti-pork".

She is solidly Republican: no political maverick. The State party leaders hate her because she has bit them in the back and humiliated them. Other members of the party object to her self-description as a fiscal conservative.

Around Wasilla there are people who went to high school with Sarah. They call her "Sarah Barracuda" because of her unbridled ambition and predatory ruthlessness. Before she became so powerful, very ugly stories circulated around town about shenanigans she pulled to be made point guard on the high school basketball team. When Sarah's mother-in-law, a highly respected member of the community and experienced manager, ran for Mayor, Sarah refused to endorse her.

As Governor, she stepped outside of the box and put together of package of legislation known as "AGIA" that forced the oil companies to march to the beat of her drum.

Like most Alaskans, she favors drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. She has questioned if the loss of sea ice is linked to global warming. She campaigned "as a private citizen" against a state initiative that would have either a) protected salmon streams from pollution from mines, or b) tied up in the courts all mining in the state (depending on who you listen to). She has pushed the State's lawsuit against the Dept. of the Interior's decision to list polar bears as threatened species.

McCain is the oldest person to ever run for President; Sarah will be a heartbeat away from being President.

There has to be literally millions of Americans who are more knowledgeable and experienced than she.

However, there's a lot of people who have underestimated her and are regretting it.


*"Hockey mom": true for a few years

*"PTA mom": true years ago when her first-born was in elementary school, not since *"NRA supporter": absolutely true *social conservative: mixed.

Opposes gay marriage, BUT vetoed a bill that would have denied benefits to employees in same-sex relationships (said she did this because it was unconstitutional).

*pro-creationism: mixed. Supports it, BUT did nothing as Governor to promote it.

*"Pro-life": mixed. Knowingly gave birth to a Down's syndrome baby BUT declined to call a special legislative session on some pro-life legislation

*"Experienced": Some high schools have more students than Wasilla has residents. Many cities have more residents than the state of Alaska. No legislative experience other than City Council. Little hands-on supervisory or managerial experience; needed help of a city administrator to run town of about 5,000.

*political maverick: not at all

*gutsy: absolutely!

*open & transparent: ??? Good at keeping secrets. Not good at explaining actions.

*has a developed philosophy of public policy: no *"a Greenie": no.

Turned Wasilla into a wasteland of big box stores and disconnected parking lots. Is pro-drilling off-shore and in ANWR.

*fiscal conservative: not by my definition!

*pro-infrastructure: No. Promoted a sports complex and park in a city without a sewage treatment plant or storm drainage system. Built streets to early 20th century standards.

*pro-tax relief: Lowered taxes for businesses, increased tax burden on residents *pro-small government: No. Oversaw greatest expansion of city government in Wasilla's history.

*pro-labor/pro-union. No. Just because her husband works union doesn't make her pro-labor. I have seen nothing to support any claim that she is pro-labor/pro-union.


First, I have long believed in the importance of being an informed voter. I am a voter registrar. For 10 years I put on student voting programs in the schools. If you google my name (Anne Kilkenny + Alaska), you will find references to my participation in local government, education, and PTA/parent organizations.

Secondly, I've always operated in the belief that "Bad things happen when good people stay silent". Few people know as much as I do because few have gone to as many City Council meetings.

Third, I am just a housewife. I don't have a job she can bump me out of. I don't belong to any organization that she can hurt. But, I am no fool; she is immensely popular here, and it is likely that this will cost me somehow in the future: that's life.

Fourth, she has hated me since back in 1996, when I was one of the 100 or so people who rallied to support the City Librarian against Sarah's attempt at censorship.

Fifth, I looked around and realized that everybody else was afraid to say anything because they were somehow vulnerable.


I am not a statistician. I developed the numbers for the increase in spending & taxation 2 years ago (when Palin was running for Governor) from information supplied to me by the Finance Director of the City of Wasilla, and I can't recall exactly what I adjusted for: did I adjust for inflation? for population increases? Right now, it is impossible for a private person to get any info out of City Hall--they are swamped. So I can't verify my numbers.

You may have noticed that there are various numbers circulating for the population of Wasilla, ranging from my "about 5,000″, up to 9,000.

The day Palin's selection was announced a city official told me that the current population is about 7,000. The official 2000 census count was 5,460. I have used about 5,000 because Palin was Mayor from 1996 to 2002, and the city was growing rapidly in the mid-90's.

Anne Kilkenny


August 31, 2008

-- Posted by Vindicated on Tue, Oct 28, 2008, at 10:01 PM

I guess everyone should at least have an choice of what to believe. Again, probably depends on your preconceptions.

"Sarah Palin is the US's answer to Margaret Thatcher! Anyone who thinks she cannot handle the job or deal briskly and efficiently with ANY issue, including foreign governments ... well, they haven't met our Sarah.

As an Alaskan resident as well as a resident of Wasilla, AK, where Sarah Palin was at one time Mayor ... I can speak with confidence. Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska is exactly what she portrayed during her introduction this morning and exactly what our US Government needs. She is ethical to a fault (if there is such a thing), a refreshing change to the status-quo and as smart and determined a PERSON (gender really isn't an issue here as far as I'm concerned) as anyone could ask for at the head of government.

Sarah is no naive 'small town mayor' -- she just *started out* there. BTW, as Mayor of Wasilla, she brought this 'small town' through a lot of GOOD changes and left it at the end of her term having grown to the 4th largest CITY in Alaska -- a lot of growth and a stronger economic base than ever before.

She has EXECTUTIVE experience *running a government* (something NONE of the other candidates can actually boast, even John McCain) as Governor of Alaska and got there by defeating the *incumbent* Republican Governor, who was definitely part of the 'old school' and who WAS very much in the pocket of the big oil

companies. We in Alaska wanted change -- and we got it in the person of Sarah Palin!

Sarah Palin is everything she looks to be and more. Her approval rating as Governor of Alaska has been as high as 95% and is currently leveled out consistently in the upper 80 percentile throughout the state (and in both parties) - the HIGHEST approval rating of ANY sitting Governor.

Sarah has been turning around corruption in the Legislature of Alaska - turning things on their ear for that matter; cutting spending in spite of the increased income the state is currently receiving due to the high oil prices - she has insisted on putting a huge amount of the 'windfall' into savings for the future rather than spending, spending, spending - and has insisted from the get-go on what she refers to as 'honest, ethical and transparent governing' - no more closed door meetings and dealings - the big oil companies thought she would be a pushover and have learned better to their chagrin.

She understands the 'real people' and the economic issues we all face (Alaskans along with the rest of the country) - she was one of 'us' not long ago. Rather than passing useless 'laws' or throwing money at pet projects, she (most recently) temporarily suspended the state gas tax (on gasoline at the pumps, fuel oil and natural gas for homes, etc.) and has ordered checks issued to ALL residents of Alaska this fall in an attempt to assist with the burden of high fuel costs for the upcoming winter. I could go on and on, but that's enough for now. She isn't doing these things to be popular -- she is doing it because her constituents are HURTING financially and she can help.

She became Governor of Alaska by defeating the Incumbent Republican Governor and doing it *without* the money or the support of the Republican Party, which was amazing in itself - and she won by a landslide. The 'powers that be' at that time totally underestimated Sarah and learned better the hard way. She has done exactly what she claimed she was going to do and is just as popular today as the day she was elected - perhaps more so since even the Democrats up here seem to like her - she works well with both sides in the Legislature here.

Sarah 'belongs' to us (Alaskans) ... and although we are going to be terribly sorry to see her leave before she finishes the job she started here (two years ago) straightening out OUR State ... we understand she is needed for a bigger purpose and hopefully her Lt. Governor will be able to fill her shoes here and continue the job.

As for worrying about what would happen if McCain were to die or step down or whatever ... Up here in AK we've only been wondering how long we would be able to KEEP Sarah in Alaska and have seen her as our first woman President of the USA from the start. It's always been a matter of whether she would wait until the end of her TWO terms as Governor (no doubt at ALL that she would be re-elected if she ran for a second term at the end of her current term) ... or end up in Washington sooner. She could do the job TODAY.

Personally, I feel a lot better about McCain now that I know he has someone as savvy, as strong, as ethical and as steady as Sarah at his back. She will be an excellent Vice President ... and my guess is she will be our US Republican Presidential candidate in four years - AND by then the country will KNOW her -- will love and respect her as we do here - and she'll win by as much of a landslide as she did here in Alaska. I only wonder if McCain has a clue what he is unleashing on the US of A. She is going to be a fresh wind, but also a strong wind.

Is that enough of an endorsement? If not, I'll add this ... Jerry and I have for many years felt the best 'vote' was to vote for the lesser of two 'evils' and hope they didn't do too much damage. Two years ago during our State Governor's race was the first time EVER that we actually asked for not just a little sign to put in our yard showing our support of our candidate (something we've never felt the desire to do at all before) - we asked for a full 4' x 8' 'SARAH PALIN FOR GOVERNOR!' sign and were proud to have it. She hasn't let us or Alaska down. She will do the same for the USA if given the opportunity."

Deb Frost in Alaska

Debbie & Jerry Frost

Wasilla, AK 99652

(907) 357-3060

-- Posted by devan on Tue, Oct 28, 2008, at 10:24 PM

Too bad Sarah can't answer common sense questions like "what newspapers do you get your news from?" LOL.. All the experience in the world means nothing if you lack common sense, just ask AIG, Lehman Brothers, Bear Sterns, Country Wide, and more.

-- Posted by Vindicated on Tue, Oct 28, 2008, at 10:40 PM

Btw, LOVE Sarah Palin as a person, however the possibility as President when she has no idea what the V.P. actually does, is beyond scary.

-- Posted by Vindicated on Tue, Oct 28, 2008, at 10:41 PM


Kinda glad you wrote this. I was at my parents tonight when Leno was on (I'm not a fan of him or Letterman), and he was doing the "man on the street" thing. He asked folks several questions about both McCain and Obama, and government in general. He asked one young lady what the 3 branches in government were and she answered, Congress, parliment and executive. I think that's the scary thing, even with all the nonsense going on with the media, is that we still have citizens that are clueless as to who they are voting for. It would be interesting if the T-G interviewed a few folks on the street and see what the responses were. I'll have to admit that even with the divergence of opinion on all these blogs, most are intelligent responses.

-- Posted by Sharon22 on Wed, Oct 29, 2008, at 12:49 AM

Sarah Palin is probably a lot better than most people assume . . . unfortunately she was limited greatly by McCain's campaign and that was a bad idea. When she ventures on her own, she seems to excel. Biden on the other hand . . . . I mean come on, there were some far better choices on the Democratic side than him and was only chosen for his foreign relations experience since Obama had none.

And who knows, maybe she reads Better Homes and Garden or Readers Digest and didn't want to admit that! :-) Heck, I read so many different websites on news that I can't even remember most of them.

And there is definite bias in the media . . . how anyone does not see that is beyond my comprehension and is probably short-sighted themselves.

-- Posted by jaxspike on Wed, Oct 29, 2008, at 7:34 AM

Sharon22 . . .I watched a news piece in which they went to a concert and asked several of the college age people there certain questions and was shocked at how many of them didnt know basic facts like how many people are in the Senate or the number that come from each state and some Obama supporters when shown a picture of Biden, didnt know who he was.

It was sad really.

-- Posted by jaxspike on Wed, Oct 29, 2008, at 7:39 AM

I find this interesting . . .

You may have heard that Wednesday night Barack Obama will be on five different TV networks speaking directly to the American people.

He bought 30 minutes of airtime from the different networks, a very expensive purchase. But hey, he can afford it. Barack Obama is loaded, way more loaded than John McCain, way more loaded than any presidential candidate has ever been at this stage of the campaign.

Just to throw a number out: He has raised well over $600 million since the start of his campaign, close to what George Bush and John Kerry raised combined in 2004.

Without question, Obama has set the bar at new height with a truly staggering sum of cash. And that is why as we approach this November, it is worth reminding ourselves what Barack Obama said last November.

One year ago, he made a promise. He pledged to accept public financing and to work with the Republican nominee to ensure that they both operated within those limits.

Then it became clear to Sen. Obama and his campaign that he was going to be able to raise on his own far more cash than he would get with public financing. So Obama went back on his word.

He broke his promise and he explained it by arguing that the system is broken and that Republicans know how to work the system to their advantage. He argued he would need all that cash to fight the ruthless attacks of 527s, those independent groups like the Swift Boat Veterans. It's funny though, those attacks never really materialized.iReport.com: Your chance to ask Obama a question

The Washington Post pointed out recently that the bad economy has meant a cash shortage among the 527s and that this election year they have been far less influential.

The courageous among Obama's own supporters concede this decision was really made for one reason, simply because it was to Obama's financial advantage.

On this issue today, former Sen. Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, an Obama supporter, writes in The New York Post, "a hypocrite is a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue -- who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings. And that, it seems to me, is what we are doing now."

For this last week, Sen. Obama will be rolling in dough. His commercials, his get-out-the-vote effort will, as the pundits have said, dwarf the McCain campaign's final push. But in fairness, you have to admit, he is getting there in part on a broken promise

-- Posted by jaxspike on Wed, Oct 29, 2008, at 8:33 AM

Just like Sarah Palin's infamous line about Troopergate, "Hold me Accountable"... and then, "It has become political" so don't hold me accountable... I mean really, hypocrisy is everywhere... McCain is now distancing himself with Bush, and for 8 years he only ventured from his policies 6% of the time.


For someone who wants to quit having the conversation with Obama supporters you sure seem so hell bent on proving otherwise. The Palin people would love you as a speech writer, because everything you post seems to come from the Bush folks who are now embattled with the McCain/Palin folks.

Also, what is wrong wit having foresight and taking advantage of an opportunity that lies ahead. Are you seriously going to tell me, that you would be upset if our president never signed into a contract any ideal, and then realized the potential to quadruple the success was on the horizon and he DIDN'T take advantage of it... Wait, hold on, I thought you were all for capitalism as well.. Or is it only when it fits your ideology.

For example, IF for instance our government performed some R &D and found enough oil to produce 84 billion gallons below the surface of the Gulf of Mexico and that is all they were going to get, then suddenly they discovered an additional untapped reserve of more than 600 billion more gallons, would you be mad they broke their "promise" and sought additional oil or delighted in their foresight to capitalize on the potential? Same idea.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Wed, Oct 29, 2008, at 8:52 AM

Sharon22 . . .I watched a news piece in which they went to a concert and asked several of the college age people there certain questions and was shocked at how many of them didnt know basic facts like how many people are in the Senate or the number that come from each state and some Obama supporters when shown a picture of Biden, didnt know who he was.

It was sad really.

-- Posted by jaxspike on Wed, Oct 29, 2008, at 7:39 AM

Media bias? Evidently not.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Wed, Oct 29, 2008, at 8:55 AM

One last thing.... Obama chose to opt out of 'Public Financing' which is REDISTRIBUTING tax payer money(socialism) and spending it on political campaigns.

When you opt out of the service, your potential is unlimited (capitalism) and not one cent of your donations come from tax payer funds.

So, who is the socialist now? I bet it's the campaign that decries the label on a daily basis.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Wed, Oct 29, 2008, at 9:07 AM


Are excuses all you can come up with to answer Jaxpikes's comment......

"One year ago, he made a promise. He pledged to accept public financing and to work with the Republican nominee to ensure that they both operated within those limits.

Then it became clear to Sen. Obama and his campaign that he was going to be able to raise on his own far more cash than he would get with public financing. So Obama went back on his word."??

If the charismatic one can deceive you today before becoming your leader how much more can he mesmerize you into accepting after becoming your leader?

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Wed, Oct 29, 2008, at 9:44 AM

one question.....

how much of the current and past (8 years) can we stand in the future?

-- Posted by reader_2 on Wed, Oct 29, 2008, at 10:16 AM

A friend sent me this email that I thought might reach a few that seem to have a hard time understanding things. It is in the simpliest of terms but hits the mark. It is titled BAR STOOL ECONOMICS


Suppose that every day, TEN men go out for beer and the bill for all ten

comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would

go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3

The seventh would pay $7.

The eighth would pay $12.

The ninth would pay $18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do . The ten men drank in the bar every

day and se emed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner

threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm

going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. 'Drinks for the ten

now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the

first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what

about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the

$20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?' They realized

that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from

everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up

being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be

fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he

proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth m an, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).

The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings) .

The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings) .

The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).

The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).

The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued

to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to

compare their savings.

'I only got a dollar out of the $20,'declared the sixth man. He pointed to

the tenth man,' but he got $10!'

'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar,

too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I did!'

'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when

I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'

'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get

anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat

down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill,

they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between

all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists, liberals, and college professors,

is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the

most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, or attack them for

being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might

start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Wed, Oct 29, 2008, at 10:18 AM


He saw great potential just like ANY capitalist would do and rather than being stuck with GOVERNMENT funding he was wise enough to forgo it. It is not deception, it is intelligent and the only reason McCain is mad is because his own McCain-Feingold campaign finance laws handicapped him.

Besides we all know if Obama accepted the $84 million along with weak DNC fundraising he could not compete with the million dollar contributors from the RNC.

I am not going to belabor the point. Because you know, being a capitalist guru yourself that when you see an opportunity you take it... To do otherwise is foolish. Notice how you don't rebut the fact that McCain (Mr. Anti Socialism) has $84 million in TAX PAYER money to fund is campaign... That, as well as any other redistribution of wealth is socialism.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Wed, Oct 29, 2008, at 10:22 AM

One more question. In the far future, will we be asking the same question about the near future?

-- Posted by devan on Wed, Oct 29, 2008, at 10:23 AM

darrick_04 . . . they should hire you for Obama since you constantly one sided in view. If I was for McCain as you say then I would be championing him and his policies and I have not done that. Also, I voted yesterday and I remember choosing Chuck Baldwin for president and not McCain or Obama . . . I actually voted for REAL change. Do you know something about me and how I vote that I don't know about myself?

So, whatever self-deluded ideas you have about me are just that and if you cant handle the truth about your own candidate (like you basically calling me a liar when I said Obama told people to get in people's faces and argue and I proved you wrong), then I would advise you not debate with people who have differences of opinion than you. It is just that simple. My point above in the previous comment was that he agreed to do one thing and then did the opposite . . . is that going to be indicative of his presidency? If that is the case, then what makes him better than the Republicans? . . NOTHING! That is my point . . . Obama and McCain are the same crap but just tinted a different color. Unfortunately you fail to grasp that concept as you have on most things and feel the need to attack people who try and make a point.

But really, if you are going to fling accusations at people anytime you disagree with them then I would advise you to back it up with facts and not personal opinions because if you accuse me of something I am not, then I am going to flat out correct you and show where you are wrong and if takes more than that, then I am more than capable of doing so.

-- Posted by jaxspike on Wed, Oct 29, 2008, at 10:27 AM


Notice absolutely NO rebuttal of the facts presented, just more character assassination.

Love it.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Wed, Oct 29, 2008, at 10:35 AM

bellbuckletn..What are the things that are true about Obama that we do not know ? I have not voted yet and I am still up in the air. Everything I read is always what is wrong with Obama and McCain. I have not learned much about what is good about each of them and why I should vote for either one.I have changed my name one more time so this is the rebelrose.

-- Posted by heaven8kids7grandrebelrose on Wed, Oct 29, 2008, at 10:36 AM


You can't answer that question and I can't either!!!

Only time will tell!

If we all just had a "glass ball" wouldn't it be much easier!!

-- Posted by reader_2 on Wed, Oct 29, 2008, at 10:36 AM

My point above in the previous comment was that he agreed to do one thing and then did the opposite . . . is that going to be indicative of his presidency?

-- Posted by jaxspike on Wed, Oct 29, 2008, at 10:27 AM

Opportunity knocked and he answered the call. All politicians including Chuch Baldwin (WHO) change their minds... and as long as it is a noble decision with positive results I don't see why we complain. The human brain is wired to challenge its own thinking, fortunately for some, his seems to be working.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Wed, Oct 29, 2008, at 10:37 AM


Google the independent analysis of both candidates health care plans, foreign policy plans, economic solutions, etc.

All you will get from me is positives about Obama and all you will get from some is negatives about, or positive information about McCain... Honestly, you just have to search yourself because their is not one unbiased, unabashed opinion here.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Wed, Oct 29, 2008, at 10:40 AM

one question.....

how much of the current and past (8 years) can we stand in the future?

-- Posted by reader_2 on Wed, Oct 29, 2008, at 10:16 AM


My opinion is that we could stand a lot of it if you are referring to Bush. Much like it taking almost exactly 8 years to see the full blunt force of Clintons dispersal of 2.4 trillion dollars through nothing more than a housing entitlement it takes time for the actions of the present to shape the future. I still today feel the same about the terrorist war as I did the day the towers fell. I still today feel the same as I did in 2003 when Bush proposed what was then considered by Wall Street to be the greatest financial reform since the Depression only to be shunned by Democrats. I think a lot of good things have been set in motion for the years ahead.

My approval rating of Bush has stayed basically the same for the last 8 years. I understand what he walked into. Right off the bat he had to deal with the coming Clinton recession and then had to deal with the terrorist that had bred and thrived under a lax Clinton defence administration. It has been amazing to watch his general public approval rating that was and is severely regulated to a degree up and down by media establish him as the President of record having both the highest and lowest approval ratings during his term of service. It has been as low as 24% and high as 85% and almost everywhere in between at one time or the other..

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Wed, Oct 29, 2008, at 10:44 AM

One more question. In the far future, will we be asking the same question about the near future?

-- Posted by devan on Wed, Oct 29, 2008, at 10:23 AM

Depends on the magnitude of the charismatic ones' ability to deceive a given number. :)

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Wed, Oct 29, 2008, at 10:51 AM

Opportunity knocked and he answered the call.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Wed, Oct 29, 2008, at 10:37 AM


I really question who was he answering the call to?

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Wed, Oct 29, 2008, at 10:56 AM


George Bush has to take responsibility for something. Clinton's presidency ended in 2001. He was president with the same Republican majority that Bush inherited and the results of have been absolutely abysmal. Talk about seeing things through rose colored glasses, I suggest glasses in general would help you.

Clinton was not perfect, and nobody who supported him thinks so... But evidently in your eyes Bush has done no wrong, and instead of doing something to change all of the horrible things you say he inherited, he just simply made things worse.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Wed, Oct 29, 2008, at 10:57 AM

darrick_04 . . . what facts were I suppose to have a rebuttal for? I answered the issue at hand . . . sorry if you couldn't comprehend it. Also, you are the master of character assassination.

BTW . . . the sarcastic remark about Chuck Baldwin and (WHO) is funny considering the same thing was said about Obama 2-3 years ago. Sorry if you are not informed of all the candidates and what they stand for . . . who is limited in view now?

-- Posted by jaxspike on Wed, Oct 29, 2008, at 11:13 AM


He (darrick04) is not limited. He is mesmerized by the charismatic one. One of the best that has been seen thus far.

I also, like you do not want to vote for the lesser of two evils.

However, I currently wrestle with the thought that if I vote for a third party will I actually in essence be voting (helping) the greater of two evils?

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Wed, Oct 29, 2008, at 11:29 AM

We still dont know anything about Obama. I am going to vote today, I cant wait to puch the button for Chuck. I will be able to go to sleep tonite and know it will not be my fault. I did not vote for a socialist, and I did not vote for McSame. For the first time I am not voting for the lesser of two evils, I am voting for a candidate that is in line with my views.

-- Posted by greasemonkey on Wed, Oct 29, 2008, at 11:57 AM

Exactly greasemonkey . . . I am sure we are evil though because we didn't vote for the status quo and wasted our vote on someone who better represents our views and beliefs and did not waste our vote for someone who spouts the usual party line rhetoric. ;-P

-- Posted by jaxspike on Wed, Oct 29, 2008, at 12:02 PM

hi bo,

i hate to interrupt this ten billionth permutation of the same tired "debate" with an answer to your actual question, but...

i would give the media a solid B.

yes, the whole thing has gone on too long, but the media has to be responsive to what people want.

yes, every media source has some degree of bias, one way or the other. (on the whole it is rather entertaining to watch people sort thru to find the media whose bias affirms their own, and declare that to be "unbiased"). however, anyone actually wanting to make a reasonable assessment of the issues and the candidates can filter out enough real information to make that judgement, as long as they avoid the trap of only processing information that confirms their pre-set opinions.

i dont think the media has done anything deserving of an A, but if one takes in all the available sources with a critical eye, the sum total is enough to draw decent conclusions. sure beats the single sided bias of the media in so many other countries.

however, there is one portion of the overall media coverage for which i dont have a very warm feeling. i question the value of all the anonymous "blogs" that have seemingly become a media mainstay. the "information" that finds its way into these is so ridiculous as to be comical (if only so many people didnt take it seriously). and, as evidenced by this thread, there is a tendency to have an endless repetition of the same pointless "debates", regardless of the topic.

if only i had my own blog, i'd entertain you with a humerous categorization of these "contributors".

but i dont want to hijack your thread.

now back to the same old re-runs.

-- Posted by lazarus on Wed, Oct 29, 2008, at 12:30 PM

I am not old enough to remember any elections from waaaaaaaaaaaay back. I dont watch alot of news, but it seems almost all networks are pro-Obama. Even if the dont come out and say so, they are assisting him by not reporting on his questionable past and demanding answers, but yet we know every step Joe the Plumber has taken since birth. At the very least they spend an enormous amount of time worrying thereselves silly about Sarah Palin, which I find amusing.

-- Posted by greasemonkey on Wed, Oct 29, 2008, at 12:40 PM

I have always felt Fox news has negative veiws toward minorities, and politically leans more to the right. To me they seem to have more negative veiws toward Obama and less to none toward McCain.

CNN, HN, CNBC, MSNBC I feel give more positive veiws toward Obama, and more negative veiws toward McCain. When you flip through the channels looking at Fox news compaired to the others it seems like one of them is telling the truth and the other is not. Seems like they are focused on opposite stories.

I thought this was really cute, a message from some little people; "YOU CAN VOTE HOW EVER YOU LIKE".



-- Posted by Momof3&3step&1gran on Thu, Oct 30, 2008, at 1:27 AM

I thought this was really cute, a message from some little people; "YOU CAN VOTE HOW EVER YOU LIKE".


Posted by Momof3&3step&1gran on Thu, Oct 30, 2008, at 1:27 AM


They were cute. One was actually rather highly intelligent on top of cute.

I wonder if Obama will have them rework and perform our national anthem and institute it as the new required anthem at all events.

Hey, maybe then he would properly address the anthem with the attention and respect it deserves. He might even place his hand across his heart. You may be on to something.

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Thu, Oct 30, 2008, at 9:20 AM

While we are on the subject of the media, I am sick and tired of the independent candidate playing second fiddle to the "r & d" parties. The only real candidates we have are running independent, and we cant even see them debate McCain or Obama. That is a shame, because almost any one of the independent candidates would make them look like fools. If anyone is still undecided I beg you to look at Chuck Baldwins website, an Independent vote is not thrown away. The only vote that is thrown away is the vote for the lesser of two evils.

-- Posted by greasemonkey on Thu, Oct 30, 2008, at 5:32 PM

If anyone is still undecided I beg you to look at Chuck Baldwins website, an Independent vote is not thrown away. The only vote that is thrown away is the vote for the lesser of two evils.

-- Posted by greasemonkey on Thu, Oct 30, 2008, at 5:32 PM


I have looked at Chuck Baldwins website and do agree that he is a better choice than the other two combined.

The only thing I wrestled with was trying to come to terms with the thought that voting for Baldwin was helping the greater of two evils if you could distinguish between the two evils.

I know in theory that voting for a third party is not throwing a vote away but in honest reality I could not escape the thought it was helping the greater of two evils.

Why can't the party designations be done away with and everybody just run under their own name instead of a party? There would not be a side to take or a room to divide if there was no party to attend.

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Thu, Oct 30, 2008, at 6:14 PM

I like your last suggestion,PB.

But,I'm confuzzelated about the bar stool economics.

Why wouldn't all the paying customers get their tab reduced by a fifth?

(Not the kind one drinks from-the 20% kind)

Where are the people protesting the "free firewater" distributed to males of the underclass?

Is this a new form of genocide meant to wreck the poor guys' health,make them less able to hold jobs,pass classes,maintain relationships,etc.?

(I'm assuming the more a fellow has to pay for drinks,the less he'll tipple.)

The tenth man shells out more money but he has more funds he can spare compared to his friends with more limited resources.

The regular joes cast the well-to-do patron as the spinster chicken who can make her contribution to breakfast without much sacrifice.

They see themselves as the piggies who must go around on crutches because their hamhocks have gone to season the grits.

I'd suspect that the third man is in league with the bartender to use grain subsidies to destroy the poor,the wealthy and the comfort of the middle class by all the friction created by the beer distribution.

(Or maybe I've just watched too many of Alfred Hitchcock's political thrillers while reading temperance tracts.)

-- Posted by quantumcat on Sun, Nov 2, 2008, at 7:20 AM

But,I'm confuzzelated about the bar stool economics.

Why wouldn't all the paying customers get their tab reduced by a fifth?

Posted by quantumcat on Sun, Nov 2, 2008, at 7:20 AM

How the h*** should I know. Ask the bartender. I was just one of the ones having a beer and holding the table down. What do you think I am? A professor of economics? -:) ear to ear.

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Sun, Nov 2, 2008, at 8:04 PM

Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.


Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.

Bo Melson is a retired sports and police beat editor of the Times-Gazette. He passed away November 15, 2014, at age 81.
Hot topics
Shelbyville Mills School
(779 ~ 11:40 PM, Nov 17)

Your Dreams
(15 ~ 4:00 PM, Nov 17)

Hope I'm Wrong, But-
(6 ~ 9:51 PM, Nov 8)

More Annoying Television Ads
(11 ~ 2:23 PM, Oct 31)

Just Some Thoughts
(93 ~ 2:43 PM, Aug 26)