We’re recommending Obama
By Independent Record - An IR view - 11/02/2008
During eight years of Republican rule in the White House under President Bush, the United States has suffered badly. It is a county that is wounded economically, less secure militarily, and less respected around the world. And its constitutional guarantees have seldom been as tattered.
The next president will immediately face difficult challenges. But fortunately for us, our choice for president on Tuesday isn’t difficult at all. It is with enthusiasm that we endorse Barack Obama.
We are not, however, interested in singing to the Democratic Party choir here. Instead, we will show the many ways in which Obama actually is a better choice than John McCain.
McCain has become a very different candidate since winning the primary race. Before, he was against Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy. Today he wants to make them permanent. He once had a thoughtful immigration reform package. Now he just talks border controls. He once concerned himself with climate change. Now the topic has disappeared in favor of “drill, baby, drill.” Having been tortured himself, he once was strongly against torture by the United States. Now he supports Bush’s veto of legislation that would have banned torture by U.S. intelligence agencies.
A presidential campaign is a crucible, and McCain has failed the test. Note his erratic behavior at the beginning of the economic meltdown — first the economy was sound, then he was going to suspend his campaign to deal with the crisis, then, well, perhaps he wouldn’t suspend it. And what of his alarming running mate pick — perhaps the most important decision a presidential candidate can make? In an attempt to bolster his Republican base, McCain risked putting an unqualified Sarah Palin a heartbeat from the presidency.
McCain has kept switching focus, and his campaign has degenerated into name calling. Obama is a Muslim! He’s a Communist! He pals around with terrorists! Obama, subjected to such scurrilous attacks, calmly smiles. Notice that he hasn’t responded in kind. No references to the Keating five, Palin’s record, McCain’s treatment of his first wife. Obama is above that sort of thing. Isn’t it time we had a president who is? Indeed, Obama has had two long, tough years of campaigning in which to stumble. He hasn’t done it. His campaign has been a model of sound management, his advisers the cream of the crop. He isn’t fighting battles of the past, obsessing on some professor who was a student SDS leader before most Americans were born, but instead is asking us to look to the future, taking responsibility for the nation’s problems now.
Obama has called for tax reform that isn’t about redistributing wealth, but merely returning to some level of fairness. Average Joe taxpayer has been losing ground under the Republicans, while the very rich have gotten every break. McCain talks about cutting taxes, but those cuts would mostly benefit the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans.
At a time when this country’s defense is spread seriously thin, Obama recognizes that we are in danger of losing the war in Afghanistan. He wants us out of Iraq as soon as is responsibly possible. McCain believes that victory in Iraq, whatever that might mean, must remain the goal.
McCain and Obama each have plenty of tough talk on terrorism, and each pledges to repair our alliances in the world, but it is Obama who most stresses diplomacy, a concept that seems rather foreign to the current administration.
As, of course, have been civil liberties and rule of law, constantly under siege since 9-11. While Obama has been vocal about correcting Bush’s excesses, McCain has had little to say about the matter. Nor has he said much about Bush’s war on science, or on the separation of powers.
It is Obama’s ability and willingness to listen that truly mark his campaign. McCain’s forces have been quick to mock him for having been a community organizer. But it is just such an endeavor, undertaken by a young Harvard Law School graduate without money or power, that says volumes about him. Obama was willing to work with everyone, liberal and conservative, rich and poor, to improve the quality of life in his South Chicago community. Is there a better preparation to reunite a divided and broken country? It sure beats Palin calling Republican-leaning states “pro-America.”
Of course the election of the country’s first black president would be a powerful statement that America is maturing, striving to put racism behind us at last. And it reveals a great deal about Obama’s courage. But the stakes here have little to do with color and everything to do with steering this country in a new direction. The choice is more of the same or the kind of change that Obama offers — the honest, savvy leadership we so need at this troubled time.
The next president will immediately face difficult challenges. But fortunately for us, our choice for president on Tuesday isn’t difficult at all. It is with enthusiasm that we endorse Barack Obama.
We are not, however, interested in singing to the Democratic Party choir here. Instead, we will show the many ways in which Obama actually is a better choice than John McCain.
McCain has become a very different candidate since winning the primary race. Before, he was against Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy. Today he wants to make them permanent. He once had a thoughtful immigration reform package. Now he just talks border controls. He once concerned himself with climate change. Now the topic has disappeared in favor of “drill, baby, drill.” Having been tortured himself, he once was strongly against torture by the United States. Now he supports Bush’s veto of legislation that would have banned torture by U.S. intelligence agencies.
A presidential campaign is a crucible, and McCain has failed the test. Note his erratic behavior at the beginning of the economic meltdown — first the economy was sound, then he was going to suspend his campaign to deal with the crisis, then, well, perhaps he wouldn’t suspend it. And what of his alarming running mate pick — perhaps the most important decision a presidential candidate can make? In an attempt to bolster his Republican base, McCain risked putting an unqualified Sarah Palin a heartbeat from the presidency.
McCain has kept switching focus, and his campaign has degenerated into name calling. Obama is a Muslim! He’s a Communist! He pals around with terrorists! Obama, subjected to such scurrilous attacks, calmly smiles. Notice that he hasn’t responded in kind. No references to the Keating five, Palin’s record, McCain’s treatment of his first wife. Obama is above that sort of thing. Isn’t it time we had a president who is? Indeed, Obama has had two long, tough years of campaigning in which to stumble. He hasn’t done it. His campaign has been a model of sound management, his advisers the cream of the crop. He isn’t fighting battles of the past, obsessing on some professor who was a student SDS leader before most Americans were born, but instead is asking us to look to the future, taking responsibility for the nation’s problems now.
Obama has called for tax reform that isn’t about redistributing wealth, but merely returning to some level of fairness. Average Joe taxpayer has been losing ground under the Republicans, while the very rich have gotten every break. McCain talks about cutting taxes, but those cuts would mostly benefit the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans.
At a time when this country’s defense is spread seriously thin, Obama recognizes that we are in danger of losing the war in Afghanistan. He wants us out of Iraq as soon as is responsibly possible. McCain believes that victory in Iraq, whatever that might mean, must remain the goal.
McCain and Obama each have plenty of tough talk on terrorism, and each pledges to repair our alliances in the world, but it is Obama who most stresses diplomacy, a concept that seems rather foreign to the current administration.
As, of course, have been civil liberties and rule of law, constantly under siege since 9-11. While Obama has been vocal about correcting Bush’s excesses, McCain has had little to say about the matter. Nor has he said much about Bush’s war on science, or on the separation of powers.
It is Obama’s ability and willingness to listen that truly mark his campaign. McCain’s forces have been quick to mock him for having been a community organizer. But it is just such an endeavor, undertaken by a young Harvard Law School graduate without money or power, that says volumes about him. Obama was willing to work with everyone, liberal and conservative, rich and poor, to improve the quality of life in his South Chicago community. Is there a better preparation to reunite a divided and broken country? It sure beats Palin calling Republican-leaning states “pro-America.”
Of course the election of the country’s first black president would be a powerful statement that America is maturing, striving to put racism behind us at last. And it reveals a great deal about Obama’s courage. But the stakes here have little to do with color and everything to do with steering this country in a new direction. The choice is more of the same or the kind of change that Obama offers — the honest, savvy leadership we so need at this troubled time.
Current rating: 2.7 with 105 ratings.
Click here to register
Reader Comments:
purple wrote on Nov 7, 2008 4:50 PM:
" "diazo"
What about your repeating outrageous and ridiculous slanders against President Bush?
Why do you subscribe to the belief that when a democrat states something it is AUTOMATICALLY the truth?
You probably believe the documents that Dan Rather was pedalling during the closing days of the 2004 election were true, despite the fact they were proven to be frauds. "
What about your repeating outrageous and ridiculous slanders against President Bush?
Why do you subscribe to the belief that when a democrat states something it is AUTOMATICALLY the truth?
You probably believe the documents that Dan Rather was pedalling during the closing days of the 2004 election were true, despite the fact they were proven to be frauds. "
diazo wrote on Nov 6, 2008 5:53 PM:
" dietz1963,
My comments were directed at those who have been repeating the most outrageous and ridiculous slanders against Barack Obama, and who think that any policy debate can be settled by calling the other person a socialist. I did underestimate the sincerity of such folks' beliefs -- today's stories of runs on gun stores suggests they really do think Obama is going to take their guns away. The GOP is responsible for perpetratng this nonsense in lieu of addressing real issues. When people find that a year from now they can still go buy a gun, I hope they remember who misled them.
I am under no delusions that Obama can wave a magic wand and make all our problems disappear. That's why I was careful to say "make headway". I do believe he and the Democratic Congress can do that much, assuming Mr. Boehner doesn't roadblock them every step of the way with filibusters, as he seems to be threatening. If the Democrats do screw up (versus being undermined by the GOP minority), I will be first in line to vote for a third party. "
My comments were directed at those who have been repeating the most outrageous and ridiculous slanders against Barack Obama, and who think that any policy debate can be settled by calling the other person a socialist. I did underestimate the sincerity of such folks' beliefs -- today's stories of runs on gun stores suggests they really do think Obama is going to take their guns away. The GOP is responsible for perpetratng this nonsense in lieu of addressing real issues. When people find that a year from now they can still go buy a gun, I hope they remember who misled them.
I am under no delusions that Obama can wave a magic wand and make all our problems disappear. That's why I was careful to say "make headway". I do believe he and the Democratic Congress can do that much, assuming Mr. Boehner doesn't roadblock them every step of the way with filibusters, as he seems to be threatening. If the Democrats do screw up (versus being undermined by the GOP minority), I will be first in line to vote for a third party. "
dietz1963 wrote on Nov 6, 2008 12:31 PM:
" Diazo:
By your comments I guess I feel as though my intelligence is insulted. I don't know anyone that understands how our political system works that is "scared". Because, as many of us know...only if Obama is backed by Congress, will anything change. Many of us know and understand that regardless of any policy Obama signs off on or doesn't sign off on, makes little difference if Congress isn't on board. Or did you forget if a President introduces something Congress can crush it, or if he vetos something Congress can still pass it. And we all know that if he does make mistakes we don't like, he will only be in office 4 years or a maximum of 8 regardless whereas Congress folks (if voted in) can basically be in office till they die.
He may very well be someone that can help initiate change. I think everyone has that potential. But again, unless he can get the support of Congress, nothing is going to change.
To that end, what changes do you expect he is going to make in the next 4 years? In the first months, he's going to have to figure out what policies from the last President are in place or in work before he can start doing anything. Not unlike any one of us who would be taking over for another person. As our leader, he will be expected to visit our troops in the field because he is Commander in Chief. He will be expected to travel around the world to meet with foreign leaders. With all this in mind, how much do you think he is going to change?
About the only thing I know that is going to change, is troops in Iraq. I have no doubt that during his term we will get pulled out. But understand, that has been in the work since 2005 and an extraction strategy has been in place since 2002. I know this, because while I was in the AF, I assisted in drafting some of that strategy. The only reason it has not happened is because Congress has been waiting for the on site commanders to signal when they feel Iraq will be in a position for us to do so without the potential of going back in. We are close to that point now, more or less targeted for around 2010 if you have followed with the commanders on the ground has said. Funny, about the same time frame Obama has projected having the troops back.
Here is a change I really want to see, either less missions for our troops or more troops for the mission. My guess is, I won't see it just like I have not seen it in the last 20 years. In the past, our military has gotten more troops when something broke out and then of course when things cooled off, less troops. But since 1988, regardless of the amount of conflicts our force has had to deal with, the force has been continually reduced. And what concerns me is, during Obamas administration...that trend will continue. "
By your comments I guess I feel as though my intelligence is insulted. I don't know anyone that understands how our political system works that is "scared". Because, as many of us know...only if Obama is backed by Congress, will anything change. Many of us know and understand that regardless of any policy Obama signs off on or doesn't sign off on, makes little difference if Congress isn't on board. Or did you forget if a President introduces something Congress can crush it, or if he vetos something Congress can still pass it. And we all know that if he does make mistakes we don't like, he will only be in office 4 years or a maximum of 8 regardless whereas Congress folks (if voted in) can basically be in office till they die.
He may very well be someone that can help initiate change. I think everyone has that potential. But again, unless he can get the support of Congress, nothing is going to change.
To that end, what changes do you expect he is going to make in the next 4 years? In the first months, he's going to have to figure out what policies from the last President are in place or in work before he can start doing anything. Not unlike any one of us who would be taking over for another person. As our leader, he will be expected to visit our troops in the field because he is Commander in Chief. He will be expected to travel around the world to meet with foreign leaders. With all this in mind, how much do you think he is going to change?
About the only thing I know that is going to change, is troops in Iraq. I have no doubt that during his term we will get pulled out. But understand, that has been in the work since 2005 and an extraction strategy has been in place since 2002. I know this, because while I was in the AF, I assisted in drafting some of that strategy. The only reason it has not happened is because Congress has been waiting for the on site commanders to signal when they feel Iraq will be in a position for us to do so without the potential of going back in. We are close to that point now, more or less targeted for around 2010 if you have followed with the commanders on the ground has said. Funny, about the same time frame Obama has projected having the troops back.
Here is a change I really want to see, either less missions for our troops or more troops for the mission. My guess is, I won't see it just like I have not seen it in the last 20 years. In the past, our military has gotten more troops when something broke out and then of course when things cooled off, less troops. But since 1988, regardless of the amount of conflicts our force has had to deal with, the force has been continually reduced. And what concerns me is, during Obamas administration...that trend will continue. "
diazo wrote on Nov 6, 2008 9:37 AM:
" I've finally figured out what it is about Barack Obama that scares the bejeezus out of you far-right Republicans. It isn't any of the fevered, paranoid fantasies you're always going on about: that he is a Muslim; that he is a terrorist; that he is a Marxist who will ply you with wealth-redistributing tax breaks; that he is going to take your guns away. No, what really scares the hell out of you is the prospect that he will turn out to be an intelligent, thoughtful, and respected leader who pulls this country together and makes real headway in digging us out of the mess your party has gotten us into. Then where will that leave Republicans?
I'd be scared, too, if I were you. "
I'd be scared, too, if I were you. "
kzeiler wrote on Nov 6, 2008 9:30 AM:
" purple - I think maybe naturalblonde196 thought that you were bashing Bush 43. The only other time that "Bush" and "war" appear in the same sentence in the endorsement or in the comments is in the endorsement with regard to his "war on science." You could maybe stretch the second sentence of the endorsement out to be "bashing" of Bush on the war. In any case, unless naturalblonde196's response is either to your post or completely out from left field. But that post of yours is from out in left field - do you honestly think that you have a greater military mind than General Powell?
Democrats are not gods, just generally smarter & more reasonable than Republicans. ;-) Honestly though, I know several very intelligent, reasonable people who are Republicans. I respect them & their opinions even though I disagree with them. I wish those kinds of folks would post here more often to counteract the wild-eyed ranters.
I'm sorry that you couldn't respond to my comments in the Schweitzer article yesterday - I'd still really like to know how you think the Coal Trust Fund works.
BTW, purple, I'm glad to see you're back. I was worried about you during your hiatus over the past few weeks. "
Democrats are not gods, just generally smarter & more reasonable than Republicans. ;-) Honestly though, I know several very intelligent, reasonable people who are Republicans. I respect them & their opinions even though I disagree with them. I wish those kinds of folks would post here more often to counteract the wild-eyed ranters.
I'm sorry that you couldn't respond to my comments in the Schweitzer article yesterday - I'd still really like to know how you think the Coal Trust Fund works.
BTW, purple, I'm glad to see you're back. I was worried about you during your hiatus over the past few weeks. "
purple wrote on Nov 5, 2008 6:31 PM:
" "naturalblonde"
You know that is blasphemy to say that democrats are not GODS, don't you? "
You know that is blasphemy to say that democrats are not GODS, don't you? "
naturalblonde196 wrote on Nov 5, 2008 2:40 PM:
" Before we start bashing Bush on the war let's remember that Clinton had the chance to get Osama when he was in office and admitted it so maybe if he had done his job 911 wouldn't have happened. Hinesight is easy for people to comment on. Every leader has done things that people don't agree with no matter what the chioce may be so unless you can say you have had the weight and choices these men have had as President then let's show some respect. It's a tough job anyway even if you have Congress and the Senate on your side. When it's party against party then things just don't get done. I may not have agreed with all the choices Bush made but I didn't agree with Clinton either. All of the Presidents have to deal with whatever the last administration. "
diazo wrote on Nov 5, 2008 12:34 PM:
" Well, you've certainly proven General Powell is a socialist, purple. Look out, here he comes to take your guns. "
purple wrote on Nov 5, 2008 10:12 AM:
" "diazo"
It was colin powell who went to President Bush [41] and twisted his arm to end the ground war portion of Desert Storm "too soon" all because of the photos and video of the "highway of death" in Kuwait.
When U.S. aircraft destroyed the lead and last vehicle in that column Iraq army personnel abandoned the vehicles in the rest of the column because they understood if they didn't they would be wiped out.
powell was overly concerned about the misperception that thousands if not tens of thousands of Iraq army soldiers were massacred.
Had the ground portion of Desert Storm been allowed to proceed for 48 additional hours, what was left of the Iraq army would have been destroyed.
powell evidently didn't learn squat from his time as a small unit commander in Vietnam when the rules of engagement prevented U.S. forces from pusuing the VC/NVA and wiping them out, which only prolonged the war and resulted in additional unnecessary casualties. "
It was colin powell who went to President Bush [41] and twisted his arm to end the ground war portion of Desert Storm "too soon" all because of the photos and video of the "highway of death" in Kuwait.
When U.S. aircraft destroyed the lead and last vehicle in that column Iraq army personnel abandoned the vehicles in the rest of the column because they understood if they didn't they would be wiped out.
powell was overly concerned about the misperception that thousands if not tens of thousands of Iraq army soldiers were massacred.
Had the ground portion of Desert Storm been allowed to proceed for 48 additional hours, what was left of the Iraq army would have been destroyed.
powell evidently didn't learn squat from his time as a small unit commander in Vietnam when the rules of engagement prevented U.S. forces from pusuing the VC/NVA and wiping them out, which only prolonged the war and resulted in additional unnecessary casualties. "
diazo wrote on Nov 4, 2008 9:24 AM:
" Right, Mr. Fasbender, Warren Buffet and Colin Powell are both closet Marxists, so they endorsed Obama. Any system of taxation is by definition "redistribution of wealth"; it's just a question of who pays how much. Under Bush, we've seen the wealth redistributed upward to the point we've got the greatest wealth disparity in the industrialized world. Giving the middle class a tax break for a change is a very long way from state ownership of industry, which is the definition of Marxism. Please take the tin hat off and join the discussion armed with facts, not hysterical name-calling. "
loritrout wrote on Nov 3, 2008 10:21 PM:
" Oh, what a bunch of crybabies!!!
After Obama wins, do us all a favor,
move to Canada, it will quieter when your gone! "
After Obama wins, do us all a favor,
move to Canada, it will quieter when your gone! "
dietz1963 wrote on Nov 3, 2008 4:54 PM:
" gf guy,
Are you serious, not sure where other than becoming Pres...how to get executive experience? How about by having been a mayor, or a governor or...yes, serving in the military.
The President will automatically become Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces. Meaning, directly above the military. Now call me stupid, (and I think I speak for some of my other military pals out there) I just don't get a lot of warm fuzzys being commanded by a 44 year old that has never been in the military and consistantly flip flops on issues. A Commander and Chief needs to be decisive, and if you know anything about Obama and his record, he is not. Regarding the POW part of your comment, its not just that, its that he spent 22 years in the Navy, four in the U.S. House of Representatives and 22 in the Senate. Whereas Obama has only served in the Senate 4 years, 2 of which has been on the campaign trail.
Bottom line, McCain is more experienced. "
Are you serious, not sure where other than becoming Pres...how to get executive experience? How about by having been a mayor, or a governor or...yes, serving in the military.
The President will automatically become Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces. Meaning, directly above the military. Now call me stupid, (and I think I speak for some of my other military pals out there) I just don't get a lot of warm fuzzys being commanded by a 44 year old that has never been in the military and consistantly flip flops on issues. A Commander and Chief needs to be decisive, and if you know anything about Obama and his record, he is not. Regarding the POW part of your comment, its not just that, its that he spent 22 years in the Navy, four in the U.S. House of Representatives and 22 in the Senate. Whereas Obama has only served in the Senate 4 years, 2 of which has been on the campaign trail.
Bottom line, McCain is more experienced. "
mightymuse wrote on Nov 3, 2008 3:25 PM:
" The almost unanimous lack of surprise from this group is totally unsurprising. Let's all cry crocodile tears for the poor beleaguered (old)blowhards who have helped drag this country they claim to love and the constitution they claim to support through the mud for the past 8 years. How sad if their reign of aggressive stupidity and mindless, short-sighted greed be brought to end. "
gfguy wrote on Nov 3, 2008 3:17 PM:
" How exactly does someone gain this "executive" experience that Republicans say Obama is lacking? Isn't "executive" experience obtained by becoming the President or at least Vice President? Has McCain been either? At least make a rational argument fellas.
Also, would someone please tell me how being a POW automatically qualifies someone to President. That is definitely worthy of my admiration of his guts and fortitude, but my vote, I really don't see it. But make up your own minds. "
Also, would someone please tell me how being a POW automatically qualifies someone to President. That is definitely worthy of my admiration of his guts and fortitude, but my vote, I really don't see it. But make up your own minds. "
mike fasbender wrote on Nov 3, 2008 9:06 AM:
" Ours is the greatest country on earth. Where else in the world can a company such as Lee Enterprises via the Independent Record actively participate and benefit from our capitalist form of government (although benefit may be a loose term based upon the stock price quotes in the blog), while endorsing a Marxist candidate who clearly believes in wealth redistribution instead of capitalism?
The media has picked their man, and the misuse of their influence in this election is truly unfortunate. "
The media has picked their man, and the misuse of their influence in this election is truly unfortunate. "
capital_city wrote on Nov 3, 2008 8:52 AM:
" Smart move, IR. Recommending a man who said that anyone attempting to build a new coal plant in the US will go bankrupt. Basically, don't even try it.
What is that MT has a surplus of... oh that's right, coal. Backing a man that is against Montana's economic and energy independence is a bold move indeed. I like how you conveniently left out his anti-coal production stance in your article.
I agree with nomoregreenies & patriot. Hand out a little Obama kool-aid with your medicine in that IR back office, and BAM, you've got yourself a newspaper staff. "
What is that MT has a surplus of... oh that's right, coal. Backing a man that is against Montana's economic and energy independence is a bold move indeed. I like how you conveniently left out his anti-coal production stance in your article.
I agree with nomoregreenies & patriot. Hand out a little Obama kool-aid with your medicine in that IR back office, and BAM, you've got yourself a newspaper staff. "
mtjewel wrote on Nov 2, 2008 10:10 PM:
" Yeah!!! Lets all vote for Obama. And while he is sitting down playing pattycake with thugs like Armadinajad, we will be left wide open for more attacks from the likes of Bin Laden and his group of thugs. And while you're at it, have Obama give me a call so he can spread some of his wealth with me. I would love a cut off what he spent on airtime last week. "
vieja44 wrote on Nov 2, 2008 6:25 PM:
" The IR supports yet another Democrat. No big surprise there. Neither is your litany of complaints against the running Republican. Sorry, guys -- I've read the "Independent Rag" too long to give any credence to your editorials.
McCain was--and is--a maverick. McCain was--and is--able to think outside the party box. McCain was--and is--the only viable candidate to be Commander in Chief of our great country.
Obama hasn't been in politics long enough to even have a track record... and he isn't running for second in command, he wants to be Numero Uno.
Maybe in another 4 years I'd reconsider voting for Obama, but certainly not this election, and not given the fact that we are currently at war. No way. "
McCain was--and is--a maverick. McCain was--and is--able to think outside the party box. McCain was--and is--the only viable candidate to be Commander in Chief of our great country.
Obama hasn't been in politics long enough to even have a track record... and he isn't running for second in command, he wants to be Numero Uno.
Maybe in another 4 years I'd reconsider voting for Obama, but certainly not this election, and not given the fact that we are currently at war. No way. "
mtsilvertip wrote on Nov 2, 2008 3:43 PM:
" Wow,
What a shock that this paper supports obama.
Who could have seen that coming? "
What a shock that this paper supports obama.
Who could have seen that coming? "
dietz1963 wrote on Nov 2, 2008 2:47 PM:
" I would consider this article not objective. In your support of Obama, it is painfully obvious you have not done your homework. Of course Obama is a good speaker and does appeal to what any of us want to hear. But to suggest that McCain has flip flopped on issues while to also suggest Obama has not...is simply wrong. I challenge you to see for yourself at this web link (one of several):
http://www.gop.com/eyeoniraq.htm
These are video comments that Obama himself said, and if you pay attention, counterdicted himself almost every time. Like he has continually opposed the Iraq war, but also talks where he supported it. Felt the surge would not work only to later say a surge could work then said it did work. Talks about no immediate time from to withdraw but then talks about a timetime frame. The best one I liked what when he was asked if any would remain in Iraq, he said "a few, to protect Embassy, politicans and a small strike force to go after terrorists. He was later asked about that statement "you said earlier leaving a task force for terrorists...and he said, and I quote "no, that is not what I said". say what???? I just listed to the clip and that is exactly what he said.
To quote Mr Sowell , a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute, is an African American born in North Carolina but raised in the Bronz. High school drop out who was drafted into the Marines and later went on to gain huge a number of university degrees...education on his own. Unlike Obama, who was raised by rich grandparents in Hawaii. Here are some of his comments:
"The story of Obama's political career is not a pretty story. He won his first political victory by being the only candidate on the ballot after hiring someone skilled at disqualifying the signers of opposing candidates' petitions, on whatever technicality he could come up with.
Despite his words today about "change" and "cleaning up the mess in Washington," Obama was not on the side of reformers who were trying to change the status quo of corrupt, machine politics in Chicago and clean up the mess there. Obama came out in favor of the Daley machine and against reform candidates.
Senator Obama is running on an image that is directly the opposite of what he has been doing for two decades. His escapes from his past have been as remarkable as the great escapes of Houdini.
Why much of the public and the media have been so mesmerized by the words and the image of Obama, and so little interested in learning about the factual reality, was perhaps best explained by an official of the Democratic Party: "People don't come to Obama for what he's done, they come because of what they hope he can be."
To that end, I would have to agree with the Democratic parts as to why you have endorsed Obama, it is not for what hes done, but of what you hope he can be.
I sincerely hope all who are voting are considering ALL the facts before they vote "
http://www.gop.com/eyeoniraq.htm
These are video comments that Obama himself said, and if you pay attention, counterdicted himself almost every time. Like he has continually opposed the Iraq war, but also talks where he supported it. Felt the surge would not work only to later say a surge could work then said it did work. Talks about no immediate time from to withdraw but then talks about a timetime frame. The best one I liked what when he was asked if any would remain in Iraq, he said "a few, to protect Embassy, politicans and a small strike force to go after terrorists. He was later asked about that statement "you said earlier leaving a task force for terrorists...and he said, and I quote "no, that is not what I said". say what???? I just listed to the clip and that is exactly what he said.
To quote Mr Sowell , a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute, is an African American born in North Carolina but raised in the Bronz. High school drop out who was drafted into the Marines and later went on to gain huge a number of university degrees...education on his own. Unlike Obama, who was raised by rich grandparents in Hawaii. Here are some of his comments:
"The story of Obama's political career is not a pretty story. He won his first political victory by being the only candidate on the ballot after hiring someone skilled at disqualifying the signers of opposing candidates' petitions, on whatever technicality he could come up with.
Despite his words today about "change" and "cleaning up the mess in Washington," Obama was not on the side of reformers who were trying to change the status quo of corrupt, machine politics in Chicago and clean up the mess there. Obama came out in favor of the Daley machine and against reform candidates.
Senator Obama is running on an image that is directly the opposite of what he has been doing for two decades. His escapes from his past have been as remarkable as the great escapes of Houdini.
Why much of the public and the media have been so mesmerized by the words and the image of Obama, and so little interested in learning about the factual reality, was perhaps best explained by an official of the Democratic Party: "People don't come to Obama for what he's done, they come because of what they hope he can be."
To that end, I would have to agree with the Democratic parts as to why you have endorsed Obama, it is not for what hes done, but of what you hope he can be.
I sincerely hope all who are voting are considering ALL the facts before they vote "
MtMadeMan wrote on Nov 2, 2008 1:52 PM:
" Spoken like a true ultraliberal paper in the back pocket of Obama.
No wonder Lee Ent. stock is in the tank.
I sure wish there was another paper in town for me to read the ads and cartoons the only good part left of the paper. "
No wonder Lee Ent. stock is in the tank.
I sure wish there was another paper in town for me to read the ads and cartoons the only good part left of the paper. "
nomoregreenies wrote on Nov 2, 2008 12:51 PM:
" If the IR believes that Obama is honest and savvy, then they must be smoking marijuana in that dump they call an office. No wonder--the kind of junk this paper prints suggests even stronger medicine. There is a reason readership is down--IR! We're sick of your partisan, inappropriate, and ill-fitting stories that you portray as hard news. Your editorial board and newswriting staff need to be sent to rehab before you spiral into the dark hole of Obama worship. Wake up! "
lovedmontana30years wrote on Nov 2, 2008 12:10 PM:
" I'm proud to see the IR taking this position with such well thought-out reasoning. Good job! "
patriot wrote on Nov 2, 2008 7:42 AM:
" No surprise here form the IR. But are you kidding me< Obama has not focused on the past, only when it comes to mentioning McCain & Bush in the same breath. We simply do not know enough about the inner beliefs of Obama. Racism is behind us, individual preferences are not and never will be. I do not trust a man who associates with the likes of Ayers, Wright, Farakhan, Kahlidi and Rezko.
The IR has swallowed a big gulp of the Obama koolaid. The IR's editorial content will be heraled by the left leaning democrats, and bemoaned by the more conservative. The IR's statement,"Of course the election of the countrys first black president would be a powerful statement that America is maturing" seems more racist and polarizing than anything I have read to date.
This election is about policy not race. I don't think the IR has a clue, quit reading other news outlets opinion pages and come up with something more original. Go back to school,study journalism as you should have in the first place> "
The IR has swallowed a big gulp of the Obama koolaid. The IR's editorial content will be heraled by the left leaning democrats, and bemoaned by the more conservative. The IR's statement,"Of course the election of the countrys first black president would be a powerful statement that America is maturing" seems more racist and polarizing than anything I have read to date.
This election is about policy not race. I don't think the IR has a clue, quit reading other news outlets opinion pages and come up with something more original. Go back to school,study journalism as you should have in the first place> "
blade55 wrote on Nov 2, 2008 7:19 AM:
" WOW,I'm shocked. A left slanted newspaper recommending Obama. While I believe George Bush has been a poor president, jumping from a democracy to socialism is not the answer.
I believe if Obama is elected he and the democratic pollit bureau (Boxer,Feinstein,Schumer,Frank,etc) will all but destroy the Constitution & the Bill of Rights. If voters would bother to do any research on this guy and not just listen to the left slanted media drivel coming from the tv and newspapers,they would see just what he stands for.
Check his voting record, this guy is dangerous.Of course your not allowed to disagree publicly with his views because if you do your a racist.
Although I see the IR never misses a chance to print negitive things about McCain and Palin,I have never read anything negitive about Obama. Maybe his disciples are right,he is a god.
I believe the American people will never knowingly adopt socialism,but under the name of "Liberalism" they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program,until one day America will be a Socialist Nation,without knowing how it happened.
This country is walking on the blade of a knife and could fall either way.I pray we make the right choice. "
I believe if Obama is elected he and the democratic pollit bureau (Boxer,Feinstein,Schumer,Frank,etc) will all but destroy the Constitution & the Bill of Rights. If voters would bother to do any research on this guy and not just listen to the left slanted media drivel coming from the tv and newspapers,they would see just what he stands for.
Check his voting record, this guy is dangerous.Of course your not allowed to disagree publicly with his views because if you do your a racist.
Although I see the IR never misses a chance to print negitive things about McCain and Palin,I have never read anything negitive about Obama. Maybe his disciples are right,he is a god.
I believe the American people will never knowingly adopt socialism,but under the name of "Liberalism" they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program,until one day America will be a Socialist Nation,without knowing how it happened.
This country is walking on the blade of a knife and could fall either way.I pray we make the right choice. "
MTRICH wrote on Nov 2, 2008 7:06 AM:
" I am not surprised at all about the IR endorsement of the Democratic Partys candidate. I will admit however that I have noticed both sides claiming there is bias for or against whatever the other side is, even at the same media outlet. Still, I do feel that the IR, like most media outlets, has shown its bias throughout it stories and more importantly, by what it omitted from coverage. The omission of facts which support another side is just the same as lying as it will produce the same outcome. When not omitted, stories which do not promote your cause are placed deeper in the paper to HIDE it from the reader. Personally, I dont feel that any news organization which endorses a candidate can be trusted to fairly report the news. Your endorsement only serves to prove that the paper does have an agenda. You have chosen who you think SHOULD win. That makes you a P.A.C. not a news reporting organization.
As SGT. Friday used to say...Just the FACTS maam. In this court of public opinion I want the TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH. Yes, I know most papers endorse candidates and that just proves how little we can trust the media in general today. You gladly report stories on the approval and trust ratings for the president (as it supports your cause) but the media is not doing much better than the president is. Right or wrong, you give us very little reason to trust your reporting. Endorsements only serve to prove to one side or the other that the bias we suspected was there all along. In an honest media outlet I should have to wildly guess who the editors and reporters personally support as the NEWS should NEVER have such bias let alone show it. "
As SGT. Friday used to say...Just the FACTS maam. In this court of public opinion I want the TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH. Yes, I know most papers endorse candidates and that just proves how little we can trust the media in general today. You gladly report stories on the approval and trust ratings for the president (as it supports your cause) but the media is not doing much better than the president is. Right or wrong, you give us very little reason to trust your reporting. Endorsements only serve to prove to one side or the other that the bias we suspected was there all along. In an honest media outlet I should have to wildly guess who the editors and reporters personally support as the NEWS should NEVER have such bias let alone show it. "
knucklehead wrote on Nov 2, 2008 5:38 AM:
" Gee, I never saw that coming. Given the bias shown in this election, this wasn't surprising. Evidence the vast majority of the endorsements. All it really does is confirm the notion that Lee Enterprises (IR et al), is puppet for the Dem's. You would think that more balance would help sell the product. For me, I think I will re-distribute my wealth elsewhere and read online for free.
By the way, LEE stock was at $2.50 a share last week. Down from $15 one year ago and $40+ 3 years ago. Coincidence? I think not, Liberals and business just don't mix.
The bias that has been consitently exhibited, relegates this paper into the genre like throwaway's such as Queen City News. At least they dont make any excuse for it. "
By the way, LEE stock was at $2.50 a share last week. Down from $15 one year ago and $40+ 3 years ago. Coincidence? I think not, Liberals and business just don't mix.
The bias that has been consitently exhibited, relegates this paper into the genre like throwaway's such as Queen City News. At least they dont make any excuse for it. "
dietz1963 wrote on Nov 2, 2008 1:19 AM:
" It is somewhat disheartening to keep reading what the Republicans have done over the last 8 years and what Obama and more Democrats are going to do for us in the next 4. The fact is, the Democrats have been in power since 2006 and if you look closely, this is when things really went south. And to read how McCain has said this and that while Obama has been seemingly and angel. Come on, Obama has cast just about as many stones and his supporters have went out looking for dirt on McCain and vice versa. Want to really know who is to blame? We are, because we voted these people into office.
Quite frankly, things have been messed up in Washington for a long time and yet, look at how many have been in office 20-40 years. Its not the Presidents fault things are messed up, its Congress and the House. Ultimately ours cause we voted or keep voting the same people in.
As far as for what Obama is going to do for us, ok. How? First, he really doesn't have executive experience nor has he ever served in the military. So, as President, he will automatically be Commander in Chief of the military. Without experience? Come on people, if we were hiring someone to run our business...would we hire them having no experience? Take at a look at his Congressional experience. He got in office in 2004 and for the last 2 years has been campaigning. And this is the person who is going to take it all on and fix what, in my mind, has been broke for the better part of 40 years.
All this aside, lets say for sake of argument he is the best man for the job. But a President is not a dictator, so in order for change....he has to convince over 500 Washington DC politicians if any of the needed change or his "plans" are going to work. If they don't accept the ideas, vote them in, it does not matter how much change he's promising. Conversly, and we all know this....Congress and the House are a big problem. If they do something crazy what can he do to stop it? He can't force them, he can't fire them.....in fact he will only have power over his immediate cabinet, not the rest. He can veto, but they can turn around and pass anyway.
If anything else, Obama is a true politician. Suave, articulate, and telling us what we want to hear. But lets consider the source. In 2007 Obama promised to run his campaign solely on public funding. Promised. A promise he has already broken, now running off private funding cause he could "raise more funds". Whats next?
I would like to be positive, thinking this one inexperienced person is going to make a drastic change. But I spent 24 years in the military so I have a pretty good idea how the system works. My gut tells me we are in for even more tough times ahead, regrettably, I see the military personnel paying an even higher price then now.
I am supporting McCain. Not simply because I think he can necessarily fix anything either, for the reasons I have already stated why Obama can't. But McCain was prior officer in the US Air Force, prior POW, congressman with many years and having served on many committees....he is the best qualified for the job at this point in time. And because of his qualifications, is in a better position to convince Congress and the House to "fix it" because they have the power. Not the President. "
Quite frankly, things have been messed up in Washington for a long time and yet, look at how many have been in office 20-40 years. Its not the Presidents fault things are messed up, its Congress and the House. Ultimately ours cause we voted or keep voting the same people in.
As far as for what Obama is going to do for us, ok. How? First, he really doesn't have executive experience nor has he ever served in the military. So, as President, he will automatically be Commander in Chief of the military. Without experience? Come on people, if we were hiring someone to run our business...would we hire them having no experience? Take at a look at his Congressional experience. He got in office in 2004 and for the last 2 years has been campaigning. And this is the person who is going to take it all on and fix what, in my mind, has been broke for the better part of 40 years.
All this aside, lets say for sake of argument he is the best man for the job. But a President is not a dictator, so in order for change....he has to convince over 500 Washington DC politicians if any of the needed change or his "plans" are going to work. If they don't accept the ideas, vote them in, it does not matter how much change he's promising. Conversly, and we all know this....Congress and the House are a big problem. If they do something crazy what can he do to stop it? He can't force them, he can't fire them.....in fact he will only have power over his immediate cabinet, not the rest. He can veto, but they can turn around and pass anyway.
If anything else, Obama is a true politician. Suave, articulate, and telling us what we want to hear. But lets consider the source. In 2007 Obama promised to run his campaign solely on public funding. Promised. A promise he has already broken, now running off private funding cause he could "raise more funds". Whats next?
I would like to be positive, thinking this one inexperienced person is going to make a drastic change. But I spent 24 years in the military so I have a pretty good idea how the system works. My gut tells me we are in for even more tough times ahead, regrettably, I see the military personnel paying an even higher price then now.
I am supporting McCain. Not simply because I think he can necessarily fix anything either, for the reasons I have already stated why Obama can't. But McCain was prior officer in the US Air Force, prior POW, congressman with many years and having served on many committees....he is the best qualified for the job at this point in time. And because of his qualifications, is in a better position to convince Congress and the House to "fix it" because they have the power. Not the President. "
Share Article
diazo wrote on Nov 8, 2008 12:14 PM: