Sunday, July 30, 2006

Argus endorses Brennan. In other news, the Pope is still Catholic

In a move that surprises nobody, our liberal paper - The Argus - endorsed Brennan. This is the same paper that endorsed John Kerry in 04 and almost the entire democrat ticket in 2002, including Granholm, Gary Peters, Butch Hollowell, Carl Levin, and even Joe Hune's opponent. I would have been shocked and wonder what's going on if they didn't endorse Brennan. The Argus has the right to their opinion, but I take issue with this statement here.

Drick followed that up with a campaign mailing that accused Brennan of not supporting our troops in Iraq. It was a shameful, unjustified attack


She organized the war protest. People who have war protests do not support the troops. Period.

39 comments:

Communications guru said...

Oh please, dam, what utter baseless drip to trot the tired old republican strategy of the liberal media myth. To accuse the newspaper of being liberal is ridiculous. It’s as fair and unbiased as possible, and if anything it leans slightly right with a member of the editorial board that was once a conservative republican candidate for the state House and one that contribute to the Mike Rogers campaign.

The statement “Drick followed that up with a campaign mailing that accused Brennan of not supporting our troops in Iraq. It was a shameful, unjustified attack” is 100 percent true. In fact, I called you on that the day the mailing came out, and you chose to ignore it.

You could not be more wrong when you say people who protest the war do not support the troops,a nd in fact they support them much more than you do, especially when it came before the war even strarted, like when this protest occurred. If you support the troops so much, why don’t you enlist?

bluzie said...

It's very difficult to respect someone who has no regard for the truth. Your attack on Judge Brennan is a lie.
I personally support the troops and believe with all my heart sending them to war unnessarily with out proper armor, equipment and a plan is not supporting the troops.
So here is my clear attack:
If you support the Bush adminstration, you are not supporting our troops, you are treating their lives very cheaply.
I stand behind this and as the friend of those killed in Vietnam, I believe it's our duty as Americans to show great care as to how our soldiers are used.
Blast away Red. I know for a fact I love and support our troops and our country! I don't see how following this poor plan is supporting our troops, and it certainly does not show love for our country.

Patrick Flynn said...

The P&A just last week also endorsed Mike Rogers.

bluzie said...

That's so surprising after you have worked so hard to raise money and get your message out to the voters. What are they thinking?

Page Field said...

When did this endorsement get published?

Republican Michigander said...

It was in Today's Argus. (Click on my headline at the top)

Page Field said...

From a historical perspective the Press&Argus is certainly leaning left more than anytime in its legacy. Now that said, I believe the editorials are middle of the road.

Most of this gravitation to the left by the paper is a result of suburbanization of the area. Also the local Rep. Party has not helped itself any.

Communications guru said...

Sorry Page Field – great name by the way, there is not a speck of proof to the untrue assumption you just made. This liberal media bias crap is a political strategy that began with the Nixon era when he used to trot Agnew out to push this crap.

I see no reason to unseat Judge Brennan, and neither did the newspaper. Drick certainly gave them no reason, and even if she had not been an incumbent he gave them no reason to choose him. However, he did give them plenty of reasons no to endorse him.

If Drick would have gotten the endorsement it would be simply because he’s the best candidate, according to dan and his ilk, but the fact that Judge Brennan got it he can roll out that stupid liberal media bias crap. That’s such a perfect setup; if my guy doesn’t get the endorsement it’s because they are biased, but if he does get it they are correct. What a setup; you can’t go wrong with that logic.

RKG said...

I think the real reason for the endorsement is recognition that Drick's talents are really wasted at the District Court level. If it's all about values and the need to have someone on the bench who can inject their values into the decision making process regardless of the facts or the law, then we should be working to get him on the Michigan Supreme Court bench. Why bother with the District Court. I say we should start a Drick for Supreme Court campaign so he can decide cases without regard to the law or facts as he apparently would like to do. The Argus did him a favor. Besides, who really needs the endorsement of some liberal rag. I'm surprised that he would have even bothered to interview with them.

wilberboy said...

Why doesn’t communications guru use spell check, he is charge of a blog, act a little more professional. You are the supposed intellectual party (I use that loosely). It is odd I just looked @ Mike McGonegal blog run by this fellow and there are no comments, at lease you would think bluzie would cover his back over there and not spent so much time reading this conservative blog.
You liberal’s don’t seem to get it BUSH IS NOT RUNNING FOR RELECTION tell me what your party is going to do. All that has driven you is your hatred for Bush. That is why you lost the last presidential election (Remember John Kerry Served In Vietnam, I voted Against It After I Voted For It) and if you truly think the radicals over @ The Daily Kos are going to help guide your party you are loosers again. No one they have supported has won an election. Bill Clinton has even joined the battle over the Dem party by backing Liberman. Why do you think he backed Joe? Come on you are the intellectual party surely you must know?
Do you think Hillary has a chance, remember she supports the war.

bluzie said...

Well if this is so open ended, why do all you anti- abortion people not hold DeVos to a higher standard? He's pretty loose about this issue and doesn't want to discuss it. Could it be it doesn't really matter? You just use it as a get out the vote tool? Hmmm, there seems to be a lot of hypocrisy in this group.

Count Me Red said...

Brennan's "Jane Fonda Style" protest did take place during the war! We were already in Afghanistan and 130,000 of our troops were in Kuwait, Qutar, Off-shore Turkey, etc. for many months before the actual war in Iraq started. The war in Iraq was NOT a war to find WMD's, as you liars keep contesting, it was a war to find out if the WMD's had been destroyed, per the agreement. Activist Theresa Brennan will have to live with her paper trail and her actions, which were clearly AGAINST our TROOPS. Communications guru, go look at the back issues of your beloved paper before you make claims you can't back up, and we can. There is no mistaking the fact that she is an ACTIVIST and will not be elected to the bench in Livingston County. Our County supports our troops, our commander-in-chief, the war on terror, and we will not stand by while some activist in a black robe tries to lie to us about her non-partisan race. She is very much a partisan and she should either be proud of that and see where she lands, or sit down and be quiet. We won't be lied to and we won't elect her to the bench. Watch and see.

And Bluzie, jeeze, will you ever get some facts before you post? You sound so silly that I even hate to respond, but for the record, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF OUR TROOPS HAVE VOLUNTEERED THEIR SERVICE and you cannot say they give their lives unnecessarily from the comfort of your couch. You sound plain stupid when you claim to support the troops and dis their mission. Thank God that these brave young Americans turn their cheek to you and fight and die so you can say stupid things freely. You are a yellow bellied coward, no bones about it, and your words and attitude give aid and comfort to our enemies. No wonder you like Jane Fonda Brennan. I see that I sound as angry as I am, but you traitors just get under my skin. I know, you can save the speech, you are traitors in my book and nothing you say will change my mind on that so save your fingers.

RKG - what a stretch. Drick did not say he would make decisions based on his values. He would make them based on the law. It's what he said, why try to change it into something else? Drick interviewed with them, knowing he would not get their endorsement because they asked to interview him. Unlike Theresa Brennan who felt that an interview with Right to Life and the Republican Party was not worth her time. She does not want to answer questions, she just wants you all to believe that she is non-partisan.

We shall soon see if our community is as dumb as Brennan thinks they are, or if they are smart enough to get out and vote with their eyes, ears, and nose. Brennan does not pass the smell test here. Our community will tell her loud and clear how we feel about someone protesting our Troops on the Courthouse lawn!!

Communications guru said...

Mr. Communist you are simply off your rocker. The protest you are talking about was over Iraq, Iraq before the war started. Now, bush may have propositioned troops, but at the time he said that wasn’t true, and war was the last option. How did we know he was lying? No one had any problem with the war in Afghanistan. The entire world was behind us then because we were going after the person and persons responsible for 9/11.

How many more lies are you and bush going to make up for the Iraq fiasco? Bush sold it as Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and were an immediate threat to the U.S. You are the liar. Judge Brennan has never, ever led an anti-troop protest, nor has there ever even been an anti-troop protest in Livingston County. I not only looked through the back issues of the newspaper, and I was also there. I strand by what I said. I can back up my claims, and I have repeatedly. I’m still waiting for you to do the same. You keep telling me you will, but as usual it never happens.

She’s not lying to you about a “nonpartisan race.” It’s the law. Now, you can’t get past your bias, but that’s your fault and problem. I’ll watch and see. Anyone who is involved in there community can be called an activitist, and that includes just about everybody in this county except you.

After reading your tirade against Bluzie, I can see that you have gone off the deep end. Not a word you said made any sense. Try getting your facts straight, take an anger management course and them come back and try and make a valid point backed up with some facts.

wilberboy said...

About two weeks before deciding to invade Iraq, President Bush was told by then CIA Director George Tenet this was a "slam dunk case" that dictator Saddam Hussein had unconventional weapons, this is the Bill Clinton CIA appointee
It is a fact that the best intelligence at this time both US and British pointed that Saddam did indeed possess WMDs. The Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq also states that this is true. Guru you have posted your opinon not facts.

Communications guru said...

First of all, Wilber, Bush decided well more than two weeks before he invaded he was going into Iraq, despite telling people the exact opposite. Hell, it was more like two years.

George Tenent may have been a Clinton appointee; I don’t really know or care. But isn’t this the same George Tenent that was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by bush. If he was incompetent, why wasn’t he just fired instead of rewarded?

There was plenty of doubt about what Saddam had, but any doubts were thrown out by the busheies in their search for a justification for the war. He manipulated the public, and you, into buying into his Iraq folly. The good news is people are wising up. This is from factcheck.org.

“In fact, before the war Bush and others often downplayed or omitted any mention of doubts about Saddam's nuclear program. They said Saddam might give chemical, biological or even nuclear weapons to terrorists, although their own intelligence experts said that was unlikely.”

Here’s a link, and that’s a fact, not opinion.

http://www.factcheck.org/article358.html

wilberboy said...

The President says Democrats in Congress "had access to the same intelligence" he did before the Iraq war, but some Democrats deny it."That was not true," says Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean. "He withheld some intelligence. . . . The intelligence was corrupted."

Neither side is giving the whole story in this continuing dispute.

The President's main point is correct: the CIA and most other US intelligence agencies believed before the war that Saddam had stocks of biological and chemical weapons, was actively working on nuclear weapons and "probably" would have a nuclear weapon before the end of this decade. That faulty intelligence was shared with Congress – along with multiple mentions of some doubts within the intelligence community – in a formal National Intelligence Estimate just prior to the Senate and House votes to authorize the use of force against Iraq.

No hard evidence has surfaced to support claims that Bush somehow manipulated the findings of intelligence analysts. In fact, two bipartisan investigations probed for such evidence and said they found none. So Dean's claim that intelligence was "corrupted" is unsupported.


Guru what am I missing this is your link. What do you read from this, this is as I stated above.

wilberboy said...

Guru, for the record I did vote for Bush But I personally was against going into Iraq from the very get go. So I was not manipulated by any person.

Communications guru said...

My point is bush threw out any intelligence that did not jive with his theory that Iraq had weapons that were an immediate threat to the U.S. He zeroed in long ago that he was going to invade Iraq, and if a piece of intelligence did not support that theory it was thrown out. If it supported his long-quest to invade Iraq, no matter how thin, unreliable or false it was taken at 100 percent accurate in his quest to manipulate public opinion, the U.N. and Congress.
I have no idea how we got to this point, but when the 150 or so people gathered on the steps of the courthouses lawn in the spring of 2003 to protest the possible invasion of Iraq and to urge the president to wait until the weapons inspectors to do their work, the president was saying war was a last resort. We now know that was a lie, and after the almost 2,000 KIAs in Iraq, it turns out the protestors were right.

RKG said...

My comments about Drick for Supreme Court were obviously tongue-in-cheek but intended to make a point. My problem with Drick's approach to this election is that I think he's trying to have his cake and eat it, too. Here's why. He thinks that Brennan should not be elected because she doesn't reflect the values of the community she will serve while he should be elected becasue he has those values. At the same time he trumpets his experience and says that he will be the best at applying the law to the facts, which is the responsibility of a District Court judge. If his values make a difference, then what he's really saying is that he'll make decisions based on those values and, presumably, not really on the facts and the law. If, on the other hand, he'll decide a case based on the facts and the law, then his values (or at least those values which differ from those held by Brennan) don't matter. I don't think he can have it both ways. Since he played the partisan/values card, I'm inclined to believe that what he's really trying to tell everyone is that he'll decide cases in a partisan manner and give only a nod and wink to the law and facts. That, my friends, is not the kind of judge you want on any bench. Discussion of war protests adds nothing to the analysis.

Pogo said...

There is a real problem in "non-partisan" races in that there is so little information available to use in making an informed decision. They don't run under a party label and there don't tend to be any earth shattering issues in most races. So how should a voter made the decision?

In the end most voters simply pull the lever for the incumbant since there is nothing else to go on. In open races with no incumbants the deciding factor often is name recognition - in other words, the candidate that spends the most money on signs and mailings wins.

This assessment may seem bleak but it fits with the way many voters make their decision. A lot of other voters simply fail to vote for judges because they don't want to cast a vote in complete ignorance.

So the question comes up: Are the prior public actions of a judicial candidate fair political game in a judicial race? Absolutely. Should leading an anti-war demonstration be a legitimate issue? Absolutely. Voters should be informed of this incident and be allowed to make their own decision as to whether they feel the issue is relevent.

The liberal leaning Argus may not feel that leading an anti-war rally is significant but many people do. In trying to pretend that the issue should not be brought up the Argus displays it's prejudice for Ms. Brennan. It is definitely an issue that voters have a right to know about. Give voters the information and let them make the decision about the importance of the issue.

NewRedOne said...

The way I understand Drick's intentions are twofold (I've called him and asked him a couple of questions):
1. To point out that Theresa Brennan was appointed to the bench because of a partisan political process. She wasn't an elected judge. Drick has been criticized for paying "the ticket price" for consideration, but he clearly stated never worked for Granholm, never held a fundraiser for her, never went door to door for her or any other Dem. It was a one-time ticket price for consideration. That doesn't make him a Democrat, by far.
2. Politics at THIS LEVEL doesn't matter, but judges at this level often rise to higher level where they DO matter. So knowing now the philosophies of the candidate you're electing can matter later. Do they matter in small claims now? No, not at all. But it's those deciding those small claims now that could very well be in higher courts later.
The other point is that the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of Michigan both changed their rulings about judicial candidates speaking out about their philosophies. They did so to keep voters out of the dark about the philosophies of the judges they're voting for.
Now, Ms. Brennan appears not to like this law, so she's not following it. How convenient. Isn't that legislating from the bench? "The Supreme Court ruled, but I disagree, so I'm not going along with it...? Hmm....

Curley Sue said...

Isn't it weird that the LCP&A has endorsed the only judicial candidates that paid for advertising in their paper? Imagine my surprise at seeing Theresa Brennan's big ad on the livingstondaily.com site several times and then, voila, she gets an endorsement. Bob Parker is the other candidate that spends big bucks in the paper and presto, he got the endorsement. The Press didn't even have good things to say about him in the last election. Hmmmm... I wonder if he changed for suit them better, or if they just like where he spends his money?? I just thought it was funny.

wilberboy said...

Guru, read the article again, dont cherry pick 1 line. Again it is your opinion not fact and you know the saying. Opinions are like ---holes every one has one.

Communications guru said...

How about making the decision based on what kind of judge the person is, what the people who come before them or work with them say about them, their background, their professional credentials, their civic involvement, their endorsements or listen to a debate, "pogo." Simply putting an R or D after their name to make a decision defeats what the framers of the Constitution had in mind.

Prior actions are fine, but that’s not what’s happening here, and I think you know it. It’s a smear campaign. If you’re going to base your decision on one incident then at least get the incident right, and drick and dan have intentionally lied about the protest. It’s not an anti-war protest because there was no war then. And as I have said time and time again, it was not an “a cut-and-run, anti-troop protest” like drick’s disgusting mailing tried to imply.

I’ll challenge you like I challenged dan – who has remained silent on the issue because he can’t back up his ridiculous claims with any facts – what makes you call the Press and Argus “Liberal leaning?” That label is simply not true, and for an editorial board with a former conservative republican candidate for the state House and a contributor to the Rogers campaign as members, they are pretty fair and balanced.

Keith Richards said...

The problem with you people at the Argus is that so many of you are left leaning liberals that you no longer understand where the political middle ground is. You THINK that you represent the middle of the road, but that is only because you spend most of your time hanging around with other left leaning liberals.

The difference between liberals and conservatives is that you liberals always want to pretend that you represent the average guy. You are afraid to admit that you are liberal. We conservatives freely admit that we are on the right side of the political spectrum. We are PROUD of our political identity - so we must ask, why are you so ashamed to admit what you believe?

As a conservative I find myself under political fire every time I get into a political debate. But unlike you liberals, I spend my time defending my values, not pretending to be something that I am not. If you liberals at the Argus had an ounce of honesty, you would admit your liberal bias and proudly defend it. You see, we don't attack you for being liberal, we attack you for pretending to be something you are not.

Keith Richards said...

Anyone who has any doubts about which end of the political spectrum the Argus sits on only has to look at the list of candidates endorsed in 2004, the last major election. Dan already printed the list.

Yes, the Argus sometimes endorses Republicans. It would be impossible not to in a county which consistantly votes nearly 2-1 for Republicans over Democrats, and where nearly every public office is occupied by someone claiming to be a Republican. Livingston County is so strongly Republican that most races are effectively decided in the primaries and it is not unusual for Republicans to run uncontested in the general election.

And if there is any doubt about the fact that the Argus does not represent the political views of its readers, we only have to consider that in most seriously constested partisan races in 2004 the voters in Livingston County DID NOT give a majority vote to the candidates supported by the Argus, not even close.

Incidently, giving endorsements to Republican candidates without any serious competition does nothing to bolster your claim of being neutral. Why should you not do this- it costs nothing and earns you brownie points. But when the races get tight and you think there is a reasonable chance of a Democrat winning, invariably you support the Democrat candidate over the Republican candidate. And in determining the political tilt of the newspaper it is these close contested races that matter.

Curley Sue said...

Okay, Kevins, you do not speak for Theresa Brennan because in HER letter dated March 6, 2003 to the Livingston County Commission on HER letterhead (and of which I am holding a copy), Theresa Brennan says
"Enclosed is an application for use of the Livingston County Courthouse lawn on March 15, 2003 by citizens who wish to peacefully gather to protest the war."
Her words, KevinS, she said she was going to protest the war. The Event was planned by the Michigan Peace Network. I would challenge anyone that wants to to google the Michigan Peace Network and see who they are. Code Pink, Students for a Democratic Society (communists) and MoveOn.Org. Wow, she associated herself with Michigan Peace Network?!?!?!?

You keep saying Jay Drick says, I think he has not said, WE have been saying. I take full credit for everything I say.

What Theresa Brennan did was demoralizing to our troops and gave aid and comfort to our enemy. Three of our troops who have come home from Iraq. They will continue to protect your right to say stupid things and even pay the ultimate price on your behalf, but they told me that it saddened them that their own people would be against their mission and act like they did in the 60's over this war. KevinS, you even compared what Theresa Brennan did to the protests of the late 60's in the article you wrote for the paper on Sunday March 16, 2003 "Vocal Crowd Protests War" by Kevin Shopshire. Thank you for helping to make our case. Theresa Brennan is an activist and associates herself with some very shady organizations. We will not elect her here.

Pogo said...

Curly Sue is absolutely right. Much of the violence in Iraq is being committed by terrorists for the specific purpose of getting attention from the U.S. News media. They know they can't beat the U.S., but they can still win if they they can get the opposition in the U.S. in power so that our troops are withdrawn.

In other words, the terrorists are putting on a performance and their audience is the U.S. media.

You people on the left can deny this all you want but it is the truth. By engaging in actions which make terrorists believe that we may withdraw, anti-war protesters are encouraging them to fight on.

What you believe does not matter. Many Livingston County residents DO believe it and this makes Brennans leadership of an anti-war rally a legitimate campaign issue. If I were Jay Drick, I would not only mention the issue, I would print up copies of that protest application and distribute them county wide. Then we'll let the VOTERS decide the relevance of this issue.

Pogo said...

Keith Richards is right about something too . . . most public officials in Livingston County CLAIM to be Republican.

We need to keep in mind that there IS NO test that candidates have to take to prove they are Republican. Moreover, most local issues tend to be non-partisan so a Democrat could run and be elected as a Republican, serve in office for years getting reelected periodically, and retire without anyone ever knowing the difference.

How much of this goes on nobody knows, but it is a fact that a lot of "Republican" officeholders in Livingston County do not support the local party or give public support to other Republican candidates.

The bottom line is that we can't assume that because someone like Buddy Moore once ran for office as a Republican that he has strong Republican values. We can CLAIM to be anything we want, but we PROVE who we are by our words and actions.

Curley Sue said...

Yes, Pogo, and by the company you keep. Theresa keeps Debbie Stabenow as her company. Says a lot about her, I think. Also, RINO's are here in our county because they knew they could only win as a Republican and declared it so. No one was the wiser until now. We are looking at where they give their money, who they hang with, what their public record looks like, how they vote, who they help, and we are no longer going to be fooled. If and when David Morse comes up for a vote again, we will say No Way. Some on his staff are in the same boat even though they belong to the Republican Party. Yes, the truth is out there, being talked about and watched. No longer will we sit back and let people run for office under cover. Theresa Brennan is the first example of someone who needs to be held accountable for her words, actions, and where she puts her money. She isn't fooling any one, she is a flaming Democrat and a shamless activist who demoralized our troops and gave aid and comfort to our enemy. We will show her what we think of that.

Communications guru said...

Well, “newredone” you are misrepresenting Drick’s tactics. It was a smear campaign, and he was trying to do what so many others have tried to do in Livingston County before – however it has always been in a partisan race – make the opponents sound as liberal as possible hoping the republican base will vote against the opponents instead of for them.

1.No, Drick has not been criticized “for paying "the ticket price" for consideration,” he’s being criticized for saying she bought the appointment then doing the same thing he criticized her for doing. That’s called hypocrisy. No one ever said Drick was a Democrat.

2. Trashing someone who wants and works to be at the top of their profession because they could run for a higher office is a ridiculous argument.
Your logic on the Supreme Court ruing is also convoluted. The first problem is the only interpretation we have is from Drick, and only Drick thinks partisan politics should play a part in judicial races. The other five district court candidates disagree with Drick. But even beyond that, interpreting it the way you have is ridiculous.

It’s not a law, so how can Judge Brennan follow or not follow it? It also does not require anyone to disclose their philosophy, and she’s not hiding anything to begin with. She is being smeared falsely, and she wants to stand on her record. What is wrong with that?

Communications guru said...

“Curley Sue.” Please tell me you’re joking? I have heard a lot of ridiculous lies, stories and claims on this blog, but yours is way up there.
The tired old excuse that the Argus is liberal than dan ran out for Drick not getting the endorsement didn’t work, so you’re going to try this one. Please.

Editorial and advertising are segregated, like they are at most newspapers, and in Livingston County they are not even in the same building. That’s even beside the fact you are smearing dedicated professionals because your guy can’t be honest. Sad, just sad.

Communications guru said...

I did read the article again, Wilber, and I stand by what I wrote. However, if I did “cherry pick” it like you charge, so what? You have no problem with Bush doing it, and when I allegedly cherry-picked, some 2,000 U.S. servicemen did not die, thousands more were not wounded, thousands of Iraqi civilians did not die and the world did not hate the U.S.

Communications guru said...

Oh, Keith, you must have gone off your meds. This is your most ridiculous rant yet, to date that is.
What people at the Argus are you referring to, and what makes you thing any of them post here? Calling professional journalists “left-leaning liberals” is plain stupid. The “liberal media bias” is a political strategy that has worked for 30 years for the right, and they keep trotting it out over and over again even though it’s a lie.
I don’t know what to cringe over more, Keith, your stupid rant against the media or your stupid rant against liberals.
You are 100 percent wrong. I’m proud to be a liberal, and I’m proud every month when a senior citizen goes to their mailbox and picks up the check that allows them to live in dignity in their old age because of liberals. We let you smear the word liberal, but that’s our fault for letting your expensive think tanks pull that one off.

I don’t know where you are that you are “under political fire every time I get into a political debate” because according to people like Jay Drick that’s all we have here in Livingston County.

The journalists at the Argus are not pretending to be something they are not, they are journalists.

anonymous said...

Is the communications guru guy on drugs or what? Nothing he says makes any sense!

Communications guru said...

Oh, Keith, when I said this is your most ridiculous rant yet, I was wrong, and I only had to read a little further to get at another.

The Argus does not sit on either end of the political spectrum. Maybe the middle, but not really. What they, and every other newspaper does, is interview every candidate face-to-face, examine their record and attend most or all the public debates before they endorse a candidate. Party plays no role, and the endorsement is an individual thing. In 2004 you must be referring to the newspaper’s endorsement of Kerry over Bush. Based on his low approves rating the fiasco in Iraq and the middle east, the condition of the country and the world and the Katrina mess, how can anyone not say they did not make the right endorsement?

You are finally right about something, Keith. When you say, the “Argus does not represent the political views of its readers.” That’s 100 percent true, and it should not represent the political views of it’s readers or anyone’s political viewpoint.

NewRedOne said...

Yes, Guru, all of US are nuts, crazy, off our meds, etc., while you are the voice of reason.
When was the last time YOU talked to Jay Drick? How on earth can you possibly feel qualified represent him and his intentions?
I've spoken with him at great length about his intentions and his thoughts. He's quite candid with those who ask. I've also spoken to those close to him, and there is a complete consistency in the theories.
And the Supreme Court made a ruling, Guru. When that happens, it makes it ethical to follow it. Your opinion of whether it is doesn't matter. Theresa chose not to disclose any political philosophies... you claim that is her right to do so. Ok, going on that argument, why is it WRONG for Drick to disclose his? You can't have it both ways. If the Supreme Court says it's ok to disclose, and you say it's CHOICE, then either choice should be ok.

Communications guru said...

I never said I spoke for Judge Brennan, but what I do speak for is the truth. No one is disputing the letter you say you have, but I am calling you on the smear campaign about the alleged anti-troop protests and communist organizations.

This is so typical of the right’s strategy of if you tell a lie enough times people start to believe it. People get tired of correcting the lie, and soon the lie gets accepted as fact. That’s not going to happen here, “sue.” This BS about Code pink and moveon is pure BS.

From the article that ran on March 16, 2003. “Almost 200 people gathered in front of the courthouse to protest the POSSIBLE war with Iraq.” The war had not yet started, and they were telling the president to stand by his words and really mean it when he said war was the last resort. It should be a feather in their cap that what the protestors were saying more than three years ago was 100 percent correct.

How the hell can your reach the conclusion that a peace protest before the war even began when it was not even a done deal – in reality it was but only because bush was a liar –was “demoralizing to our troops and gave aid and comfort to our enemy.”
How can you reach that conclusion?

You’re dam right I’m against their mission. I was in the first Gulf War, and it was fought for a good reason, this one was not, and I think their lives are far too valuable to send them off to fight and die in a foreign land unless there are a lot of good reasons why, every other resort or solution has been exhausted and they are properly equipped and prepared. None of that happened.

Communications guru said...

So according to Pogo the war is the media’s fault. Fine, let’s just close up all the newspapers and the TV news stations, and let’s just let the government tell us what they want us to hear. When that happens, the terrorists have won.
We can have an official government TV news station. Oh, I forgot, we already have that, it’s called fox.