It was Insight magazine that broke the bogus stories about Barack Obama having gone to a Muslim madrassa in Indonesia as a boy (it was a public school), and about Hillary Clinton’s camp having spread the Obama dirt. But it was “Fox and Friends” host Steve Doocy (in photo) who repeated the Insight story on the cable channel, exposing it to a wide audience and reportedly leading to a frosty relationship between the Obama campaign and Fox News reporters. Old-timers in these parts will remember that Doocy grew up in Abilene, went to the University of Kansas and hosted “PM Magazine Kansas” at KAKE, Channel 10, from 1980 to 1983. About the gaffe, John Moody, vice president for news at Fox, advised his staff: “Seeing an item on a Web site does not mean it is right. Nor does it mean it is ready for air on FNC.”
Posted by Rhonda Holman
l
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Jed on Let immigrants run
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
126 Comments
Unfortunately, it will be lies like this that keep Obama from ever sitting in the Oval Office.
Not that I want him there – I don’t, but I prefer it if the reason folks vote against him is based in truth.
Hillary, Rudy, and any future contenders wont publicly trash him – but their respective camps will ‘leak’ stories. Ain’t politics grand?
For me – besides the man being a Democrat, there is one OVERRIDING issue that will NEVER allow me to vote for Obama.
He was a cocaine user when he was younger.
I think it is a VERY WRONG message to send our children – go ahead break the law – you can be President later, anyway.
Oprah brought this totally-unknown man into the spotlight and perhaps she screwed up when she did so. Before he announced, the tabloids were treating the upcoming event like so much celebrity gossip.
On Oprah – it’s not a big deal that a cocaine user cleans up his act – in real life it still is.
When you add his former criminal escapades to his dubious name, Barack HUSSEIN Obama – he doesn’t stand a Popsicle’s chance in Hell of EVER being our Commander In Chief.
No one needs to lie about the man – and they shouldn’t.
Oprah has set this man up for a trouncing of epic proportions.
G, gee..
I’m not one ever tried cocaine or drugs for recreation and I don’t accept any reasoning as experimentation. I’m totally against those arguing for legalization.
But the 60’s and 70’s were different times for young adults. Horrible drama, civil rights were being literally fought for and Vietnam caused social heartbreak, unlike the “better” wars of World War II that had more meaning.
I let those growing up in the 60’s and 70’s, a social pass. Cocaine abuse really went wild in the 80’s. Recreational continous drug use that becomes an addiction,should be held against some wanting political jobs today.
If Obama did some cocaine, what became of him? Great educational background, he didn’t suffer that way. Wasn’t born with a golden bottle either. Didn’t get off from any kind of police charge. Was never charged with a crime, that is when it matters on record.
His path to life now was earned.
You failed making nonsense remarks about his middle name. It’s older than Saddam your imagining on him and probably a name older than America.
You forget the world affects America more and more and I bet this planet will like America better because of his unique name if he became President. His biracial background between state of Kansas his mother and father from Nigeria, plus the world travel and schooling he experienced as a youngster.
The world would be intrigued how America has improved its image by electing someone like him and young for the job as President.
Guy not bogged down by a long Senate voting record is plus for him.
If he is Dem nominated and gov Eliot Spitzer as his VP, that team will beat any Republican choice.
If he doesn’t win, surely by 2012.
You bash Oprah, but do so at peril of bad reasoning, she is the media queen and can make “anybody” into a sensation.
MRage: are you able to form coherent sentences?
But I am not surprised you are not able to do so, as you ideas are totally muddled, too.
Yeah GSheridan, Shrub was heading for having his drinks out of brown paper bags until Daddy told him to his s**t together. Hell, today he has all the traits of “dry-drunk”. Our Commander-in-Chief. What were you Trunks thinking?
Yeah GSheridan, Shrub was heading for having his drinks out of brown paper bags until Daddy told him to his s**t together. Hell, today he has all the traits of “dry-drunk”. Our Commander-in-Chief. What were you Trunks thinking?
GSheridan will not vote for Obama because he confessed to using cocaine when he was young, but since he wouldn’t vote for a Democratic candidate anyway it’s not logical for him to use the cocaine excuse since the person in the Oval Office used cocaine and GSheridan probably voted for Bush.
I’m amazed about the way everyone keeps missing the story here. Insight magazine did not report that Obama went to a madrasa. The story that they reported was that Hillary’s campaign was spreading that story around.
CNN reported on it also, but they went with the story that Hillary’s warroom was putting out.
If Obama thinks that he has a chance without Fox News, he’s sadly mistaken. He might ask John Kerry how refusing to go on O’Reily’s show worked for him.
Hank
GS: (Damn, I wish your first name was Barbara or Betty.) I wouldn’t vote for Obama either, but to pawn it off on snorting a little coke 20 some years ago is a joke. What about Rush and his little Oxycontin problem, and he’s all grown up? What would you say about Ann Coulter admitting cocaine use?? And what’s your secret vice, GS, or are you the Immaculate Perception?
GSheridan does not think anyone who used coke should be the president?
GS is ripe to propose we impeach the shrub, as he was a coke user/drunk.
Hank apparently missed the part of the post above that says clearly: But it was “Fox and Friends” host Steve Doocy (in photo) who repeated the Insight story on the cable channel, exposing it to a wide audience and reportedly leading to a frosty relationship between the Obama campaign and Fox News reporters.
Only somebody dumb enough to watch F***ed News and believe it would be dumb enough to think that Hillary’s people were behind this story.
There’s zero evidence of that so far. Just like there was zero evidence that Obama went to a madrasah.
And just like there’s zero evidence that Fox News is interested in reporting actual news instead of shilling for CONs.
Well I am no fan of Obama. He’s too nice and willing to treat Republicans as more than the pond scum they are.
But if he gets trashed? Well let’s look at the trashers.
Steve Doocy? Heh. Co Host of of a failed news magazine show in a third rate town. So much for FOX’s employment standards! Maybe they could get KAKEman to replace Alan Colmes.
More Uncle Bill and less Bill O’reilly!
Delores:Remember, there are those who believe in the saying: “Cheat till you win!” and “If you ain’t cheatin, you ain’t try’n!”
Standard operating rules for the ones who are so all knowing, the rules don’t apply to them.
http://www.insightmag.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=5D3B38F8A2584DB5A77BA05660C6045C&nm=Free+Access&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=D7607FF7DB2B4B07B40F51DF143A988E
Anyone that does not think the Hillary campaign doesn’t have an opposition research team that is actively digging up dirt and releasing it to the willing liberal press is nuts.
If you don’t think the MSM is on her side just look at how fast they twisted this story around to make it about Fox News Channel.
Hank
Right Hank, its all about the vast MSM conspiricy.
Stop looking under your bed for ghosts, take your head out your rear and stop making excuses for Fox.
They didn’t have to “twist it around” to make it look like the F***ed News Channel.
I was the Faux News Channel.
And look at who Hank uses to corraborate the Fox story–INSIGHT mag, which is owned by Fox and from which the story originated.
Not even a nice try, Hank.
A link to Insight magazine Hank?
No thanks. I’d rather spend my time reading a bathroom wall.
It does not matter where the story starts. It matters who runs with it.
FoxNews did actually what they set out to do by reporting the story in “Insight”. To me it is the same thing as a “whispering” campaign against a candidate.I must congratulate GS on repeating the Republican talking point put out to discredit Obama. Not only did GS use Barack’s middle name, but he went one step further and put the name in caps.And to you Hank about a candidate not going on the O’Reilly show not getting elected, dream on.
“The Obama dirt that wasn’t”
My first thought was you mean he’s not really articulate and clean? lol
Hank…
This article was made from an email chain-letter that was going around. But the author cites an “anonymous source” instead of some ridiculous email. The point of blaming this on Hillary was to “kill two birds with one stone.”
It was obviously a BS story from the get-go. (All you had to do was Wiki Obama and find that out, which I did when I saw this story on Drudge.) Then Fox News (surprise, surprise) picks up the story without checking the facts. This is unforgivable for a “journalist”. Fox News reamed Dan Rather for the Bush docs, but figuring out that the fonts didn’t match is a lot different than a simple Google search…
Conservative Media bias.
Interesting.
No one seems to be smart enough to respond to my point. Or, are you just to stupid to understand it?
Just wondering.
Hank
The point that the story came from Hillary?
That’s bogus.
It’s part of the whole faked story.
Provide one iota of evidence that the story came from Hillary other than Insight Mag, and we’ll respond to it.
Hank:Speaking of stupid:The point of this post is all about how Fox got it wrong. Changing the subject to try and bash Hillary and then getting upset because you are ignored:
Now thats is dumb ass!
You mean ‘too stupid’ Hank. Kind of takes the sting out of your trolling jab don’t it?
And why would Hillary’s people leak stuff to the “liberal press”? The fact that THEY leaked it would be more of a story than whatever they leaked. As for Fox News, they deserve it. That was a really bone-headed move.
“Seeing an item on a Web site does not mean it is right. Nor does it mean it is ready for air on FNC.”Posted by Rhonda Holman
After reading that only three people directly address the issue in an intelligent manner, I guess this Blog isn’t ready for it either.
It is not a wise idea for anyone to repeat unconfirmed rumors period. That’s about all that needs to be said. So let’s put our adult masks and move on.
Bob, so glad you could join us, not sure we could have gotten this far without you.
Hey people. Stop for one minute and answer me this. Why would the Republicans be attacking Obama at this time? That would be stupid. When your two biggest threats are doing battle against each other, you sit back and watch and keep your powder dry. This reeks of a Clinton War Room scheme. Leak it to your friends in the press and then blame it on Fox when they report it. Its kinda like the Dems still accuse Bush 41 of dirty politics for the Wille Horton ads in 88 when it was Al (academy award for best fiction) Gore who orginally used it against Dukakis in the Democrat Primary.
Well, I’m not a Limbaugh fan – and I firmly believe that he was hypocritical to come down on drug use when he, himself, had a habit.
I’m willing to forgive Obama – but pretending that a criminal past is just okey-dokey is just plain wrong, if you ask me.
Yes, GWB had a drinking problem. I don’t like that – but the last time I looked – drinking was still legal.
Possesion of cocaine is/was a felony.
I don’t begrudge Obama his Junior Senator position – but we’re talking about the Presidency of the United States.
What kind of message does it send to kids to elect a man who committed a felony? This is one of those indiscretions that I would just as soon he forgot about – instead of pulling a Jimmy Swaggert and repenting all over the media. Blech.
He straightened up – good. But for parents who are trying to teach their kids to walk a straight and narrow path – what does that teach them? That they might as well sow their wild oats – no one is going to care down the road anyway?
How could Obama ever take a stance against children using drugs – when he, himself, was weak enough to buy into that lifestyle.
I smoked pot as a kid – just a couple of times, but I sincerely think that bumps me OUT of the running for the Presidency. That, plus I don’t have a penis. lol
IF Ann Coulter snorted cocaine – I wouldn’t pay much attention. I don’t pay any attention to her now – so why allow degenerate behavior to make me give her the time of day? She’s a bit of a nut.
I’m not being holier-than-thou, I’m just being realistic. It’s the WRONG message to send our children. I really believe that.
“Why would the Republicans be attacking Obama at this time?”Posted by: Chris from Mac Town | February 04, 2007 at 11:22 AM
LOL
Because they’d rather run against Hillary than Obama. Hillary comes with a well-defined set of negative attributes, a set that the GOP invested in extensively from 1992-2000. In other words, the GOP has a financial preference for Hillary over Obama: it’s cheaper because the marketing campaign has a well-defined foundation going in.
That’s the first reason that comes to mind.
Of course, I don’t think you’re arguing that the GOP sees absolutely zero value in interfering with, if not gaming, the Dem primary process.
But if you _are_ arguing the the GOP has absolutely no interest in the eventual Dem candidate, you’re just wrong.
Make that ideological and wrong.
By the way, how’s the MHS boys’ basketball team doing?
Faux news is pathetic- last night was flipping through the channels and accidentally landed on it, they were praising Biden for attacking the other dems (which he really didn’t do).
They called it ‘refreshing’.
NOOOOOO that’s not biased nor misleading.
I swear I have to worry about those who watch Faux faithfully. They’re just like the ones that forward all those emails we talked about yesterday.
Yeah, with re: Sheridan’s 11:33am post:
Reason #2 to prefer Hillary over Obama: the penis factor.
Reason #3:
Obama’s charisma is to Hillary’s charisma as a 150w halogen bulb is to a 60w tungsten bulb.
Haven’t we gotten to the point yet where the Fox Noise channel is considered on par with the National Enquirer, Newsmax and the World Weekly News? It’s not a serious news channel and any reporter should be ashamed to be affiliated with them.
Pedant, it pisses me off that nobody thinks a woman can be president. How very sexist.I know Hillary has more ‘balls’ than most of the men in the GOP.
doug-CNN is getting pounded by the National Enquirer? That’s makes the beating even worse.
Fox News takes up half the airtime of the News Channel here on AFN (Armed Forces Network). THAT is getting really old. If I see Sean Hannity’s fat face one more time, I may really lose it.
Rumor and inuendo is the staple of Fox.
PMom: There’s no reason why a woman could not nor should not be President. There will be a woman President soon. But, it ain’t gonna’ be Billary, darlin’!
Yada, yada, yada, Faux Noise Channel – home to every bonehead rumor provided it discredits a Democrat.
Fox has as much credibility as graffiti on a restroom wall.
What is funny is that there are still people that believe this crap – even after it has been thoroughly debunked.
Isn’t it about time that Rush O’Hannity and Company revive the Clinton Body Count rumors?
So, P Mom, I have gotten over you calling me too old to vote (sarcasm) so what do you think about a Clinton/Obama ticket for 2008?
More importantly, do you think that such a ticket would cause Rush Limbaugh to literally explode?
Jeez, the Michael J Fox thing had him on the verge of a meltdown, Hillary – Barack would push him right over the edge.
I’d love to see Clinton/Obama ticket in 08.
I think the far right would have a collective coronary!
By the way, the old person comment, was just a way to motivate the younger people to get out and vote. Twas nothing against the elderly at all.
I think there is however, a real divide between the old democrats and the new…especially in this area.
I’d love to see Clinton/Obama on the 08 democrat ballot.
The result:GOP candidate 55%Clinton/BHO 40%Green party 5%
“I think there is however, a real divide between the old democrats and the new…especially in this area.”
All the more reason for those of us on the Left to get out and push the agenda. We have allowed the Republicans to “divide and conquer” for too long.
BTW – I don’t consider myslef to be old at 54, I just could not resist……
You’re only as old as you feel and I feel great!
Clinton/Obama is the perfect ticket in ‘08. Let’s do everything we can to make that happen. Or Kusinich/Clark. Either one is excellent.
“I’d love to see Clinton/Obama on the 08 democrat ballot.
The result:GOP candidate 55%Clinton/BHO 40%Green party 5%”Posted by: KSGolfnut | February 04, 2007 at 12:30 PM
LOL, funny how that’s all subject to change once the “GOP candidate” is replaced by a warm body.
I think the GOP would love to run “GOP candidate,” though, especially since it’s polling better than any GOP human!
Quite the opposite, pedant. ANY GOP candidate would beat Hillary. That’s why we want her to be nominated.
I can see why the CONs want to talk about what MIGHT happen in ‘08.
It’s a lot easier than talking about DID happen in ‘06.
Looks like we’ll find out, fleetwood.
By the way, so you agree that the GOP has a vested interest in seeing Hillary run over Obama?
I think that explains the recent FNC stories about Obama.
Huh. ;)
The guy who should run is Al Gore.
Hell, he WON last time . . .
CapnAmerica,
Gore did not win the election.
What does it take a two by four to the head to knock some common sense into you?
Pisses you off that he won more votes, doesn’t it Nathan.
Actually, no it doesn’t.
I am a big supporter of the electoral college system and understand that sometimes a person with the most popular votes will not win the election and that it is based on the most electoral votes.
‘I think the GOP would love to run “GOP candidate,” though, especially since it’s polling better than any GOP human!’
Posted by: Pedant | February 04, 2007 at 12:40 PM
LMAO!!!
As for Rush, he is a phony. He proved that with his “letter” after the 11/06 defeat. He will say whatever he thinks his listeners want to hear. It stopped being about HIS opinion a long long long time and millions and millions of dollars ago…
The Electoral College had a place in 1787, Nathan, to protect the interests of the smaller states.
Like every other election, the Presidential election should be based on total popular vote.
What is interesting is that the Bush Team in 2000 had planned to challenge the consitutionality of the Electoral College had Bush won to popular vote and NOT the Electoral College vote.
Interesting enough, but not widely reported, the Bush Team also sued FOR a recount in New Mixico in 2000, using the exact opposite of the agument that they used in Florida.
A little Republican hypocrisy?
What is a crying shame is that Gore couldn’t even win his home state.It’s too bad Nader took away too many votes in Flori-duh.Cry babies. It’s over. Move On.
Doocy? I knew that name sounded familiar. Doocy the woocy. The kid always looked like a suck-up (as opposed to stuck-up) mama’s boy. Fox is the perfect place for him.
I actually agree with the electoral college.
But I don’t think it serves the purpose it was originally intended.
WSClark,
I think you are being misleading.
There were recounts in Florida, per state law.
Gore wanted to selectively recount certain counties by hand after they has already been recounted several times by the machine.
Try to learn the facts before you start making assinine comparisons.
“How could Obama ever take a stance against children using drugs – when he, himself, was weak enough to buy into that lifestyle.”
Hmmmmm. You know what they used to say (and probably still do), dont’ you? Don’t knock it if you haven’t tried it. ;)
GS, are you saying that people don’t learn by their mistakes? Are you saying you’ve never made one?
Let’s all bow down to GS, who never did anything wrong (the weed experiment didn’t count, of course), never went over the speed limit 1 mph, never cut in line, never returned the money she was overpaid, and on and on. Perfection at its most perfect.
Hogwash.
Hypocrite.
Typical rightie-tightie.
The thing I don’t like about the electoral college is the winner take all, especially in the large populous states. Look at California and New York for instance.Since each state has the same number of electoral college votes and reps and senators, the votes should go as individual reps represented areas go.And before you jump down my throat (or is it fingers) because this goes the Republicans way right now, it can easily change in the future.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/countymap.htm
Florida- 2000Votes for Bush–2,912,790 49%Votes for Gore- 2,912,253 49%Votes for Nader-97,488 2%
It was you people who voted for Nader not my people.. It was your own kind who allowed Bush to be elected.
No wonder you people have so much self-loathing.
RD,
“Don’t knock it if you haven’t tried it.”
I have not tried jumping off the empire state building, but I think I have enough evidence and research on my side to say it would be bad for my health.
Finding pristine candidates who have no flaw in their life, makes them shitty candidates, period.
They haven’t lived enough to understand life, much less be writing the laws the rest of us have to live by.
Hell even most police departments have to allow those who have had minor infractions in the past- or they’d have no cops.
Fleet the EXACT same argument could be applied to Bush and Perot in ‘92.
The “winner takes all” concept of the Electoral College is the issue. Hypothetically, a candidate could win a state by one vote (or 537) and take ALL of the Electoral College votes and thereby the Presidency.
The votes are based on the total number of reps in Congress, so each state has a minumum of 3 votes (one rep and two senators.)
A lot of people do not know, but even when the Republicans controlled both branches of Congress, the Democrats represented a greater portion of the total population.
With less than a half million citizens, Wyoming still gets three representative in Congress, and three Electoral College votes.
BTW – The Republican leaning states with just one Congressman – AK, MT, ND, SD, WY.
The Democratic leaning states with just one – VT, DE.
Hank – while i am sure that hillary has a ‘war room’ that does not make the InsightMag/FAUX story valid in any way whatsoever. They tried for a two-fer – slime both Hillary and Obama with one big lie. And FAUX ran with the lie.
GS – the only difference between Obama’s past drug use and Bush’s is that Obama has been forthcoming with it. There have been so many reports about bush’s coke use that it should stick too.
“Try to learn the facts before you start making assinine comparisons.”
Nice try, Nathan. Aren’t you the guy that thinks the Earth is just 10,000 years old?
Apparently facts are not real important to you.
I think it would be a very bad move to take out the protection for the minority.
The presidential race is the only one with this protection, so lets keep it.
The one who is most popular by a long ways is going to win anyway.
fleet raises a goo point that I have also raised: if Gore had held onto his ‘flank’ he would have won hands-down. Not just Florida but also New Hampshire.
Andrew – that does not apply in the same way to Perot 1992 – polls I saw indicated he took more from the challenger (Clinton) than from the incumbent (Bush)
The same downfall plagues the popular vote as well WSclark.
You can have mega population centers in every state which are a majority to super majority more liberal than conservative control every election.
The Electoral college system is not perfect, but it is much better than the alternative you are suggesting.
WSclark,
Typical argument from someone who is wrong, deflect and defame.
So what you saying Nathan is this: a majority of the US population is liberal; we must therefore ensure minority rule to keep them suppressed.
Nice try, Nathan. Aren’t you the guy that thinks the Earth is just 10,000 years old?
Apparently facts are not real important to you.
Posted by: WSClark | February 04, 2007 at 01:45 PM
He WSClark pussy, give me ur address so I can put a size 15 spiked boot up your ass to adjust your attitude.
“Typical argument from someone who is wrong, deflect and defame.”
Once more, nice try, Nathan. This was your comment…
“Try to learn the facts before you start making assinine comparisons.”
Was I supposed to take that as a compliment?
“He WSClark pussy, give me ur address so I can put a size 15 spiked boot up your ass to adjust your attitude.”
The e-mail address is live, dude. In the words of your hero, GWB, bring it on.
Moderator–I call your attention to the threat of violence by one “skinheadfacist” above.
Please remove said post.
Thank you.
The regular crew.
Ben,
You know damn well that each state is it’s own political entitiy and the President is here to represent all.
Not just New York and California.
That is the intent of the electoral college.
Nice try at twisting my words.
“Fleet the EXACT same argument could be applied to Bush and Perot in ‘92.”Exactly! The difference is we were/are mad at Perot. We are not blaming everybody else like you people.Thank you for making my point for me.
There you have it, folks.
People like Nathan don’t want rule by the majority.
They KNOW that if metropolitan areas weren’t hamstrung by the electoral college, the Dems would win every election for all time.
Because the majority is on our side.
Oh, and you know what else, Nathan? Thousands of people move every day from rural areas to metro areas.
Not only are you on the losing side now, it’s only going to get worse.
“You know damn well that each state is it’s own political entitiy and the President is here to represent all.”
And the president should represent us by POPULATION not by SQUARE MILES.
Cows and fence posts do not have a vote – people do.
“There have been so many reports about bush’s coke use that it should stick too.”ben-ws miserably failed to prove this argument, perhaps you can do better.
Yea Nathan, but should a handful of plains state people be able to trump a much larger number of urban people? That is what minority rule is all about.
Lets take the converse of your statement: The president should represent all, not just Kansas and Alabama. And especially, a Kansan’s vote should NOT count more than a New Yorker’s vote. That is the effect of the Electoral College.
Fleetwood–
In 1972, the Texas Air National Guard instituted mandatory drug tests with every physical exam.
Pilots like W. had to take a physical before they could fly.
After the ruling in ‘72, W. never took another physical EVEN THOUGH HIS COMMANDING OFFICER ORDERED HIM TO, and he never flew again.
That doesn’t prove that he used cocaine. But it strongly indicates that Bush had some drug use that he was trying to hide.
There’re also the reports of community service. And there’re Bush comments themselves–he would only state on the record that he hadn’t used drugs IN THE PAST SEVEN YEARS.
Strangely, our so-called liberal media never seemed able to simply ask the question of candidate Bush if he had ever used cocaine despite the evidence that he had.
But, if you don’t let minorities have a decent voice, you end up with Iraq.
Ben, damn right.
The CONs believe in “one man, one vote” as long as their one vote counts a lot more than that same vote in an urban center or a populous state.
That is true p-mom; but if you have minority rule you also end up with Iraq.
Take California and New York and you are one-third of the way to the Presidency (86 EC votes).Are New York City, San Francisco and LA County interests, concerns (take values completely out of the mix) going to protect yours in large midwestern cities and rural America?
Let’s take a look at what the Electoral College is now – it takes the vote away from large urban areas like New York, Chicago and Los Angeles.
In other words, it takes a vote away from MINORITIES.
Whatever the original purposes was, this is what it has become – a way to minimize the impact of minority votes.
Kia – lets ask the reverse question: Are Kansas, Alabama, and Wyoming interests going to protect those of the large population centers of America?
No they aren’t but things would get worse for you in middle America with the values of those places versus interest of middle America affecting large urban centers.For instance, get ready for nuclear power plants and ethanol plants in your back yard.Versus LA and SF and NYC companies having to employ only a legal workforce and or Union labor.
“That doesn’t prove that he used cocaine.”
Looks like I’m on a winning streak.
Back in Georgia we used to have something called the “County Unit” system to elect governor. It was patterned after the Electoral College and was designed to hold Atlanta down under the thumb of the rural vote. Similarly, we had senators by counties. Those were ruled unconstitutional under “one man one vote”. Interesting that the Electoral College and Senate are exempt from that.
Kia – I trust my fallow citizens in New York more than trust cows and fenceposts. Perhaps that is because I am an AMERICAN rather than a KANSAN.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE V. POPULAR VOTE”This argument is hostile to the Constitution, however, which expressly established the United States as a constitutionally limited republic and not a direct democracy. The Founding Fathers sought to protect certain fundamental freedoms, such as freedom of speech, against the changing whims of popular opinion. Similarly, they created the Electoral College to guard against majority tyranny in federal elections. The president was to be elected by the 50 states rather than the American people directly, to ensure that less populated states had a voice in national elections. This is why they blended Electoral College votes between U.S. House seats, which are based on population, and U.S. Senate seats, which are accorded equally to each state. The goal was to balance the inherent tension between majority will and majority tyranny. Those who wish to abolish the Electoral College because it’s not purely democratic should also argue that less populated states like Rhode Island or Wyoming don’t deserve two senators.
Sadly, we have forgotten that states created the federal government, not the other way around. The Electoral College system represents an attempt, however effective, to limit federal power and preserve states’ rights. It is an essential part of our federalist balance. It also represents a reminder that pure democracy, mob rule, is incompatible with liberty.”
quote – Ron Paul, Congressman, Republican
States Rights? Wasn’t that the justification for the Confederacy’s arument FOR slavery?
It was their right as a State to endorse slavery.
Where would that end – blacks have no rights in Mississippi?
Native Americans have no rights in South Dakota?
Hispanics have no rights in Texas?
What a racist view WSClark.
I suppose you want to give up any chance of having your state having a say on how to run their state.
Remember that next time you want to invoke the 10th amendment when your State pass a measure on Stem Cell provisions or use of Water Rights.
I pose a question to all the supporters of the EC: do you know the six people you voted for last election? The original idea of the EC was that we would elect Electors who would be living thinking people. They, in turn, would exercise their judgement in voting for President and Vice President.
Similarly, the Constitution called for state legislatures to elect Senators; not the citizens. Should we return to that anachronistic system?
“What a racist view WSClark.”
Nice try, Poliwog. I am Native American, African American, Jewish, German and Irish.
Why would someone like me take a racist POV?
“In other words, it takes a vote away from MINORITIES.
“Whatever the original purposes was, this is what it has become – a way to minimize the impact of minority votes.”
Actually, Clark, the Electoral College takes representation away from the numerical majorities that reside in cities in the U.S. The Electoral College encourages the tyranny of the minority (numerical minority – rural citizens who are mainly white and Christian).
This book highlights the problems with the E.C.:
http://www.welcometothehomeland.com/page.php?s=1
Mann, the author of this book argues that the only way that Republicans are in power is that they know how to play the disparity and power given to rural voters. Numerically democratic/liberal ideas are favored by the U.S. public.
Mann shows that the so called liberal media’s portrayal of the growing conservatism in America is a load of hogwash. America is becoming more liberal, with those ideas not being allowed expression by a relatively few people.
The adoption of the Electoral College was hardly a universally accepted idea among the founding fatheers. Ben Franklin was decidely against it, for example.
Jeez, ah, do you folks even remember who I am?
The minorities that I was referring to were RACIAL and ETHNIC minorities.
I was not referring to POPULATION minorities.
WSClark,
Here’s a quote that pretty much covers your type of self-serving posting:
“Never argue with an idiot, he will lower you down to his level and beat you with his experience.”
Just what the hell are you talking about, Poliwog?
Christ, have you been hitting the Super Bowl punch a little early?
As Ben, said, I am an American first, then a Kansan.
PM says:”Finding pristine candidates who have no flaw in their life, makes them shitty candidates, period.
They haven’t lived enough to understand life, much less be writing the laws the rest of us have to live by.”—————-
That is simply bologna. No one is asking for a ‘pristine’ candidate to begin with – but if a person has dedicated their life to trying to be honest, forthright and decent – they are already a better person than someone who commits criminals acts – then suddenly ’sees the light.’
I don’t buy it for a minute.
People make mistakes – surely, but when those mistakes are felonies – it only says ONE thing. That person has the personality that will try to get away with something – if he/she can.
That doesn’t mean they still can’t be a good neighbor, parent, etc, it just means we have former behavior on which to base our decision.
I don’t believe criminals (even reformed ones) belong in the White House.
By the way – if given the choice between either Hillary or Obama as President – which would you choose?
I would choose Hillary. But I’m glad I don’t have to make that choice.
“I don’t believe criminals (even reformed ones) belong in the White House.”
Bush the Sequel has a cocaine possession conviction and two DUI’s.
Cheney the Killer has FOUR DUI’s.
Where do we go from here?
I’d choose Hillary, but if you think she didn’t toke right along with Bill…
The only difference between one with a criminal record for something minor like that- is that the others didn’t get caught.
I’ve said the same thing about Bush. I didn’t care what he had done in the past, even when others were bringing it up. So it’s not that I’m being partisan.
By your assessment, Catholic priests would make excellent candidates…and we know what dirty little secrets some of them held.
Super Bowl time, boys and girls.
Man, the pre-game nachos were &^%$# killer, hot, favorful and @#$ delicious!
Steaks on the Grill at halftime!
EEEEEEOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!
See ya’ later!!!!!!
And off to Old Chicago shortly – GO BEARS!!!!!!!!!!!
Hmph.
Nice try, Poliwog. I am Native American, African American, Jewish, German and Irish.
Why would someone like me take a racist POV?
You are so full of shit.
As I’ve said to you before,You must be a drunkard, clean, tight wad, Jew Hater (in your case, self hater) and finally a drunkard, again.
Your family tree is messed up.
“The minorities that I was referring to were RACIAL and ETHNIC minorities.
“I was not referring to POPULATION minorities.”
Yes, I knew you were referring to racial minorities, but the facts as outlined in my post about a relatively few rural Americans having the disportionate influence they have is as fundamentally wrong as discriminating against racial minorities. My point.
The republican exploitation of this tyranny of the population minorities is one thing we need to stop. My second point.
Historically, not all of the founding fathers were wed to to idea of the electorial college. City dweller Franklin was against it. My third point.
Bush the Sequel has a cocaine possession conviction and two DUI’s.
Proof, please or please STFU
fleetie?
I don’t think your going to be shutting anyone up here. If we took a vote on SHOULD be shut up? I think you win that one hands down.
Thanks.
So, that means more unsubstantiated claims, and that is OK? Or, please, provide proof.
I vote aye!
Just google “Bush, cocaine” – see what you come up with.
One example:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/10/18/cocaine/
I doubt if you would believe GW snorted cocaine if he did it right in front of you. So, STFU! Fleeting…
Nathan,
Your reply to my comment about not knocking it until you try it was the response I expected. I’ve used somthing of the same with my kids throughout their lives, when they’ve said, “But everybody else does it!” I always ask if their friends were jumping off of bridges or shooting themselves in the head, would they do it, too?
My comment to GS was a joke, Nathan. Lighten up. Please?
People always find fault with others and when they can’t, they make crap up. Obama is no worse than the former drunk dummy we have in there now.
As a teenager I was a complete and total jerk. I was an angry kid and hung around with like minded kids and did things I am not proud of now. Ask anybody that went to East High with me. I did drugs and plenty of good ole Boones Farm back then. I was put into Lake Afton Ranch for awile. I was even voted “Most Likely to Do Life Without Parole”. But you know people change and I changed. I am now college educated and have my own family and a good job. The point being that, whatever Obama did back then, if he saw the errors of his ways and repented from them, you have no good reason to judge him lest not YOU be judged too. At least Obama admitted his past instead of trying the “I didn’t inhale” line. And no, I am not an Obama fan. I am backing John Edwards myself.
People can change and everyone applauds Kev. I would be interested Kev in what motivated you to engage in illegal behavior? Was peer pressure part of the mix? Was a feeling of insecurity or inferiority involved? This is only my theory but I believe that some of these characteristics were part of your decision making process. These same characterisitics are undesireable in a President. We are looking for a leader for hard times. We haven’t seen such a leader for quite some time but I believe that it is crucial for our country to find such a person. Strong character is a must. We are looking for someone unusual who “just said no”. Someone who set his own course and stayed to it. Obama had something in his character makeup that excluded him from that crowd. Let’s look a little further for a strong leader.
wow cityite, that’s about the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard.
And quite sad that one must be a quaker in order to satisfy the requirements of our leaders.
We need people with ethics to tell the truth and not lie- who have lived enough to know the world is not always black and white.
There is not a soul out there who hasn’t done something wrong. You just want someone who hides it better and lies better.
I was just an angry kid and I hated the world and everybody in it including me. It wasn’t until I was later on and met a girl that I loved that I began to look at myself and figured out that maybe things were not so bad after all. So I decided then that I was gonna make some changes and I did. I gave up dope and cigarettes, got a GED and joined the USAF. I later got a college degree and am planning to go back to law school at the ripe age of 48. Some people never change but some people do. A person’s distant pass is not an indicator of their potential- even to lead the United States of America.
Good lord…cocaine usage when young precludes someone from making it to the White House?
That’s what we call a convenient excuse when a voter can’t find any other reason to vote for someone.
Candor will be rewarded with disapproval, while lying about your past (Hi, Dubya!) will win the day.
What a country.
It’s amazing how self righteous and pathetic fox news is. Steve Doocy and Friends demanded and was rewarded with the firing of Dan Rather over the Bush National Guard scandal. Now Fox News (Steve Doocy) is spreading lies about Senator Obama and its time that Fox News gets rid of the lying you know what.
Give Osama Obama a break.We need a Muslim in the White House……..Not!
AreUCrazy = BUSHBOT
Seeing as you have both his name and his religion WRONG – that says a lot about your absolute ignorance! Which radio bloviator did you get that garbage from?
He post the message twice, so it has to be right, eh, Hard?
After all isn’t that the way that the Republicans do it – repeat the same lie over and over until even they start to believe it?