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.
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.
She organized the war protest. People who have war protests do not support the troops. Period.
She organized the war protest. People who have war protests do not support the troops. Period.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
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?
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.
The P&A just last week also endorsed Mike Rogers.
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?
It was in Today's Argus. (Click on my headline at the top)
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Post a Comment