2009.08.31
Will the real Bob McDonnell please stand up?
We're writing an editorial for Tuesday about gubernatorial candidate Bob McDonnell and the 1989 master's thesis he wrote at Regent University. McDonnell has portrayed himself as a moderate in the campaign, but the person who wrote this thesis came from the far-religious-right extreme of the Republican Party.
We believe people can change over time as they learn new things. McDonnell even says he does not hew to everything he wrote in his thesis. In our editorial, we'll ask him to affirm or deny some very specific claims in that document, many of which manifested throughout his political career, and to explain what changed his mind where he no longer agrees with his 34-year-old self.
(Read his thesis here.)
RSS feed 
While we are on the topic of a thesis. let's take a look at President Obama's thesis.
Oh wait we can't.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/07/where_in_the_world_is_obamas_m.html
Funny, I don't recall the Roanoke Times showing any interest in Obama's missing thesis. I guess a person's thesis isn't really that important after all.
Comment by Henry — August 31, 2009 @ 12:59 pm
Deeds campaign released something on this, this morning. I wondered how long it would take the RTEB to climb on baord and carry the water.
What about what Senator Webb write in the 80's? You gonna give McDonnell the same free pass you gave Webb?
Nope, Webb is a dem.
As transparent as saran wrap.
Comment by Bob H — August 31, 2009 @ 1:12 pm
It looks to me like the article you linked to actually quotes his beliefs and that this was just an academic paper. What more do you want from him?
Comment by Danny — August 31, 2009 @ 1:53 pm
Danny,
It is all about trying to make the wepubwickan look bad. Deeds is desperate and needs all the water anyone can carry.
Meanwhile Webb wrote about unfit women are to command in the military (and has never specifically recanted that view) and all the RTEB could find to write about was "Macaca".
That's objectivity for you....
Comment by Bob H — August 31, 2009 @ 2:18 pm
Sorry Boys, you don't need our help to look bad, or sound bad, or act bad. Better our version of objectivity than your version of honesty.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — August 31, 2009 @ 2:23 pm
Here's what we wrote about Webb's remarks:
Friday, September 15, 2006
Edition: METRO
Section: EDITORIAL
Page: B8
WOMEN CAN FIGHT
James Webb's words 27 years ago deeply wounded women who attended the U.S. Naval Academy. Webb, as counsel to the House Committee on Veterans Affairs, penned an article "Women Can't Fight" for the Washingtonian magazine. He wrote that while women had a role in the military, it was not in combat. Therefore, women didn't belong at Annapolis, taking up men's spots; he never met a woman "whom I would trust to provide those men with combat leadership."
A harsh assessment, indeed.
At a news conference assembled this week by Webb's senatorial opponent, one woman said, "It was unbelievably demoralizing to be painted as a pampered slut who was taking up classroom space and predestined to endanger the lives of the brave young men around her." Undoubtedly.
Webb says he is "profoundly sorry" for those 1979 remarks. Though they reflect the times, they might give today's voters pause. Unfortunately, voters will find no solace in his opponent's record. As governor, George Allen resisted making Virginia Military Institute co-ed. In an interview posted on The American Enterprise Online, he said, "You just don't treat women the way you treat fellow cadets. If you did, it would be ungentlemanly, it'd be improper."
U.S. law prohibits women from serving in combat to this day. Yet, Iraq, with no true front, has blurred the line between "support" and "combat" roles. Women have equal opportunity to kill and be killed. Webb's foes have stumbled upon a legitimate campaign issue to debate.
Comment by Luanne T. — August 31, 2009 @ 2:30 pm
Seems like you spent equal time trashing Allen as well...
As Bob H said "That's objectivity for you...."
Comment by Danny — August 31, 2009 @ 2:36 pm
Bob is whacked. He writes. For example, every level of government should statutorily and procedurally prefer married couples over cohabitators, hommosexuals, or fornicators.
Comment by ernie — August 31, 2009 @ 3:31 pm
A twenty year old thesis? That's it? That's the best you have been able to come up with? How about a high school term paper? Any dirt to be found there? Believe it or not I wrote a research paper in graduate school supporting, yes Sandi, gun control. I didn't believe a word of it, but I wrote it because the professor had a reputation for giving poor grades to people who didn't agree with his political views. So I did what could best be considered opposition research, wrote and submitted a properly documented paper that concluded that gun control was quite effective at reducing crime. I thought it was a big load of bull, but he like it and I received the only 'A' in the class. The point is, you can't always tell what people believe simply by reviewing their academic work.
But that aside, can we expect a similar in-depth analysis of Deeds' mid-life musings? How about a more recent example of his record on spending and raising taxes? It's no wonder the RTEB supports Deeds. He wants to make sure we get that 30 cent per gallon increase in the gas tax in before cap and trade causes energy prices to skyrocket (Obama's word, not mine) again.
Comment by C Ramsey — August 31, 2009 @ 3:45 pm
Luanne T,
That is NOT what Jim Webb said. Jim Webb never said he was profoundly sorry for THOSE remarks. What he said was that he wrote an article that if he had to write again today (as in, if he had known he was going to run for senate someday and the article would could back to haunt him) he wouldn't write some of what he wrote then. But, he NEVER took back those specific remarks about women in combat or command.
And the article you quote from is no comdemnation of Webb's words either. The only word one heard on the campaign trail was Macaca. And it isn't even an American word.....
Yeah, the RTEB is fair and balanced all right. And Garrison Keillor is conservative.....
Comment by Bob H — August 31, 2009 @ 4:35 pm
@1 Henry: President Obama got vetted nine ways to Sunday by everybody and their little sister during the primariess and the campaign. Ain't no boogiemen anywhere. Next?
@3, 4 & 8: This matters because McDonnell is running for governor of the commonwealth. He wrote this as an adult and if he didn't really have his heart in it -- and this was his THESIS, mind you -- then might we be able to say his degrees were fraudulently obtained? And what else might he be fudging about now?
On the other hand, if he passed his thesis off as the Truth as He Sees It -- and his record indicates that he used his it as a sort of check list for his conservative legislative agenda -- then just how recently has he come to see the light? Does he really now disavow his statement that the government should favor married couples over "cohabitators, homosexuals and fornicators" as the Washington Post described it? Or is he just playing to moderates?
This is not a call to run get every writing by every candidate and pour over their words looking for a smoking gun. This is about a candidate for the state's highest office who proposed radically conservative changes to Virginia's laws in his thesis and to a little lesser degree during his legislative career who is now asking voters to believe he didn't really mean any of it.
Like his conclusion that the state should "fight any attempts to redefine family by allowing special rights for homosexuals or single-parent unwed mothers."
I think those people just want the same rights that you and I have.
So, Mr. McDonnell, what DO you mean?
Comment by Saintbridge — August 31, 2009 @ 5:04 pm
After glancing through the first couple of pages of this piece, I have to wonder...what school accepted this swill as a meriting a PhD
He quotes REAGAN? He calls the "Republican Party's Vision of the Family" the "compelling issue of the decade"?
He doesn't get out much.
Comment by Kristen — August 31, 2009 @ 5:15 pm
Kristen,
You sound like you might have known my professor. The one who gave grades based on whether or not you agreed with his politics.
Saintbridge, writing a thesis and then later reversing positions does not constitute fraud. Nor does conducting research that disproves a theory. It is only fraud if you purposely lie or distort the results. I think if you will review any number of theses and dissertations you will find that the students often tailor their theme to what a particular advisor or review board expects. It isn't fraud, it's called reality.
Comment by C Ramsey — August 31, 2009 @ 5:54 pm
CRamsey, it's not that I don't agree with his politics. I didn't agree with all of William F Buckley's politics either. I would never describe Buckley's writings as swill.
Comment by Kristen — August 31, 2009 @ 7:09 pm
C. Ramsey, I appreciate your honesty in admitting the grade was more important than your own belief. I received an F on a term paper from a teacher who said "these are not your words" (even though they most certainly were). Apparently I write better than I speak and it messes people up.
McDonnell may well be the same sort of person. Lord knows that is not an unheard of thing, although my Liberal is to the bone and a bill I have been paying all my life, many people are much more expedient than dedicated especially in early adulthood. I don't think there is much to be made of his thoughts (genuine or not) from that far back, just as Jim Webb's words when he was a staunch Republican should not be held against him 17 or 30 years later. I dare say there is little to be learned from reading anyone's thesis or term papers and I certainly have no interest.
McDonell has a record and associations to run on. He has a platform, a plan, and plenty of support within and without Virginia. THAT is what we should be discussing/debating and that is all that interests me.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — August 31, 2009 @ 7:10 pm
@13: Sure, folks can change and I know I have. But the man who would be governor has stated some pretty drastic things he thinks government ought to be involved in. And his legislative priorities have shown he believed in what he wrote -- he put most of his items up for enshrinement in law. So I think he ought to come on out and separate the wheat from the chaff. Or his strictly right-wing ways from whatever he says he believes now.
Comment by Saintbridge — August 31, 2009 @ 7:14 pm
@11 What a joke. He was never vetted. That's why he is answering questions about his birth certificate. No college transcripts, no thesis, we know more about a candidate for governor in Virginia than we do the president.
"Perspective: When Bob McDonnell was writing his controversial Regent U. thesis, Barack Obama had been cocaine-free for about ten years."...Jim Geraghy from NRO
Comment by Henry — August 31, 2009 @ 9:24 pm
McDonnell is talking out of both sides of his mouth here. He can't really disavow what he wrote since it's completely consistent with his demonstrated record as a public official and would anger the GOP base. On the other hand, he can't really embrace it without risking his so far successful effort to come across as more moderate than his actual record. He should be following Delegate Marshall's advice and not distance himself. He could have caveats about maturing, respect others' perspectives, the limits of the political process, etc. While his handling of this issue isn't a campaign killing gaffe, it has been his first major misstep.
Comment by KevinL — August 31, 2009 @ 9:39 pm
@17 You apparently don't consider running against the Clintons as being vetted. I get it: you hate Obama. But this is about Bob McDonnell. Let's stick with that issue here, please. If you had anything on Obama you would hopefully not waste your time with it here.
Comment by Saintbridge — August 31, 2009 @ 10:30 pm
I must say that if schools really want you to "lie for a grade" mayhap I did not miss as much as I thought. I missed the blurb about him being 34 when he wrote the drivel. That is more than a shade past "young and immature" thinking in any realm of the world. Between this and his W worship, he may have a problem with the NoVa voters he will certainly need. Thanks for the re-direct Henry!
Comment by Sandi Saunders — August 31, 2009 @ 10:32 pm
There is an explanation from McDonnell in the RT today. I didn't provide a link because you can see it on the scroll down to this blog.
Does Deeds really hope to capitalize on a 20 year old document when the guy has a public service record of 18 years that can be scrutinized? This smacks of desperation.
I actually like Deeds and have posted I think he would be exponentially better than Tim Kaine. He came within a gnat's eyebrow of being the AG and if he had won perhaps would be in the lead to be our next governor.
But this kind of campaigning makes me feel like Deeds isn't who I thought he was at all. Maybe the RTEB should ask for the real Creigh Deeds to stand up. Deeds has a record of public service to run on. Why not do so?
Comment by Bob H — September 1, 2009 @ 7:56 am
Bob, I am wondering the same thing. I am no fan of McDonnell and won't be voting for him, but I have been highly disappointed in Deeds campaign thus far. He's taken to running on negatives rather than really making an effort to make it known what he stands for and what he plans to do. I found his website sorely lacking on several issues, most notably a decent transportation plan. Ok, yes he does mention transportation within his economic plan, but that's all. He has a few good ideas there, but not enough meat. One line that will probably come to haunt him on the campaign is 'Bring High-Speed Rail to Virginia. High-speed rail is one of those rare technologies that could change the way we live and work. With a high-speed train exceeding speeds of 200 miles per hour, a worker could live in Blacksburg and commute to work in Fairfax.' I don't want an exporting of high-wage workers to any more of the state where house prices and incomes are far lower...because that exporting drives up prices for everything where they re-locate and it drives out the lower income locals. Just look at Winchester. The city is darn near in West Virginia, and it is essentially a far-flung DC suburb now. Home prices there have spiked big-time and locals can't afford a new home there unless they move further away. My other main beef is that he is long on ideas and goals, and I could not find anything detailing how he plans to fund those ideas. Without all of the details, I'm not inclined to support him. I won't support McDonnell because I fundamentally disagree with him on far too many issues. I'm beginning to hate elections, it's always a choice between either 'Dumb and Dumber' or 'Bad and Worse'. Can't we do better?
Comment by Other John — September 1, 2009 @ 8:40 am
Interesting that you want us to hold Jim Webb accountable for remarks 17 and 30 years old and not McDonnell for his when he was 34 and obviously in full control of his mental and judgment acuity. You cannot have it both ways Bob H. Either they are both misogynistic bums (even if now repentant) or neither is and you already weighed in on that. Don't blame Deeds for your standards.
If Deeds said or did anything in the last 20 (or more) years that can be used against him, I have no doubt it will be. McDonnell wrote the thesis and it is his to defend, refute or explain. If you wanted chivalry and decency in politics, mayhap more thought should have been given to voting for those who used it a long time ago.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — September 1, 2009 @ 8:45 am
@Bob #10: That is NOT what Jim Webb said. Jim Webb never said he was profoundly sorry for THOSE remarks. What he said was that he wrote an article that if he had to write again today (as in, if he had known he was going to run for senate someday and the article would could back to haunt him) he wouldn't write some of what he wrote then. But, he NEVER took back those specific remarks about women in combat or command.
Actually, Bob, that is EXACTLY what Jim Webb said: "and to the extent that my writing subjected women at the Academy or the active Armed Forces to undue hardship, I remain profoundly sorry."
As for his thesis, it is only as relevant as his 18-year record makes it - and if you look at the causes he has championed in that 18 years, the thesis appears to be a very accurate reflection of the depths of his beliefs, stripped to their core. Voters should know that.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — September 1, 2009 @ 8:53 am
Sandi,
I don't want it both ways. I just wanted Webb held to the same standard as McDonnell. I don't think I started this Blog. I think the RTEB did.
Personally, all I am saying is that the RTEB gave Webb a free pass on what he wrote but does not seem so inclined to do so for McDonnell. And the obvious reason is that Webb is a democrat and McDonnell is not. Where was the editorial on "will the real Jim Webb stand up". Didn't happen.
At least McDonnell has a public record he can be evaluated on. Most of what Webb had was claiming alliance with Reagan, which his widow asked him to cease and desist on. Oh, and Macaca.....
I don't want it both ways; I just don't like the liberal double standard. I actually haven't decided on governor yet and McDonnell is hardly "my guy". Deeds has just disappointed me by not taking the high road.
Comment by Bob H — September 1, 2009 @ 8:57 am
"Can't we do better?" We are so dumb we don't even know what the problem is, and you expect us to do better.
Comment by allen bunch — September 1, 2009 @ 9:01 am
I think this is a case of very fine differentiation. He apologized for the impact his words had on people, he did not apologize for the writing itself. It's kind of like punching someone in the face and saying 'oh, I'm sorry your face hurts' rather than 'I'm sorry I hit you in the face.' It was an expression of sorrow over the outcome, but not for the action.
Comment by Other John — September 1, 2009 @ 9:04 am
Sorry Dan,
That is NOT a recanting of what he wrote. It just says he is sorry for any undue hardship his writing may have caused women who serve. He sure was sorry then, because he thought it would hurt his chances to be Senator...
Show me where he has said "Women are fit to command today and I would be happy to serve under one". Good luck with that.....
I don't give him the free pass the RTEB gives him when he makes a overall blanket apology for "any harm". That is not a recant.
And, I doubt the RTEB will allow McDonnell to get away with that as your Blog indicates you want to specifically know which points in the theses today that he has changed his position on, so you can pick it apart.
Is that the scrutiny you gave to Webb? Nope. Free pass....
Comment by Bob H — September 1, 2009 @ 9:07 am
I am always amazed and amused how little original thought on state and national politics comes from the RTEB. This "scandal" appeared in the Washington Post (the mouth piece for the VA Dem Party) Sunday.
If you want to know what the RTEB thinks about national or state politics, just read the NYT and the Wash. Post editorial pages, it will be regurgitated on the RT "opinion" page within days.
Funny, the liberal media last year had no interest in looking into Obama's college years when he admitted experimenting with drugs and hanging with socialists. No story there!
The Dems are desperate and scared of McDonnell's lead in the polls. If the race were tighter, the Post would have held this story for an "October suprise".
Do you think this "scandal" was leaked to the Post by the Deed's campaign maybe? If the Allen smear was any prototype, this will be a weekly feature in the Post (reprinted in the RT) till November.
Comment by John R — September 1, 2009 @ 9:11 am
Bob,
As I have pointed out previously, Webb, in addition to the apology issued above, also said: "I'm fully comfortable with the roles of women in the military today." He also said, "There's many pieces in this article that if I were a more mature individual I wouldn't have written."
Comment by Dan Radmacher — September 1, 2009 @ 9:12 am
Obviously, "taking the high road" is as subjective as what people are held accountable for and for how long.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — September 1, 2009 @ 9:14 am
Maybe I just set my expectations of politicians too high allen...I'm almost always disappointed with what I have to choose from when I vote.
Comment by Other John — September 1, 2009 @ 9:17 am
John R, are you aware of a Progressive Editorial Board who does not espouse the Progressive Stance on issues or candidates? Do Conservative Editorial Boards appear to bend or concede to a "fair and balanced" (not the Fox kind) and completely "objective" Editorial Policy? Why the double standard?
If you want to participate in a like minded forum, they are out there. If you want the editorial position to reflect your own, find one that does. If you believe that the community is to be catered to instead of challenged, start a paper and run with that theme. Or just subscribe to the Bedford paper, it caters so badly, it crackles with Conservative rage.
The RTEB challenges me as well on many issues. THAT is what they are supposed to do. "Comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable"
Comment by Sandi Saunders — September 1, 2009 @ 9:36 am
Dan,
I am not going back there. I feel that the RTEB has given Webb a bunch less scrutiny than it intends to give McDonnell. Despite a couple of softball blogs criticizing Deeds for not having any transportation platform planks and the like, I predicted then and I predict now that the RTEB will endorese Deeds for governor. Again, where was your "will the real Jim Webb please stand up" editorial? The silence is deafening.
I think Jim Webb is an arrogant and pompous man. I have seen nothing to indicate he has changed his views on women. A handful of vague words when someone is running for public office is not a recant.
But, the RTEB was so in sync with its constituents when it endorsed Sam Rasoul (and he went on to lose by 2-1 or so) I don't think it matters. There is a double standard as far as I am concerned. I point it out and I am not the only one who sees it either.
Comment by Bob H — September 1, 2009 @ 10:13 am
The RTEB was just as in sync with what would have been best for Virginia in endorsing Sam Rasoul as Bob Goodlatte was as good as his word on "term limits".
Comment by Sandi Saunders — September 1, 2009 @ 10:48 am
"The RTEB challenges me as well on many issues. THAT is what they are supposed to do. "Comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable"
Challenges you in the sense of defending them relentlessly challenges?
Comment by Uptheriver — September 1, 2009 @ 11:09 am
"Comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable"
This little bit of banality seems to have become a quite popular mantra in these threads. Could someone explain to me why someone who has followed all the rules and laws of society and who has worked hard to achieve success and the comfort that goes with it should now find themselves the target of self-proclaimed do-gooders who, in their envy, resentment, jealousy and loathing of success, have decided it is their mission to "afflict the comfortable"?
Comment by C Ramsey — September 1, 2009 @ 12:27 pm
Sandi,
Obviously the voters don't hold that reneging against Goodlatte.... Besides, that was an issue in the 2004 race when the term of 12 years was up, how is it that it was an issue in the 2008 race? Answer, it wasn't.
Rasoul needed a platform to run on other than "vote for me because Goodlatte said he wouldn't serve more than 12 years and reneged".
But, it didn't matter to the RTEB. It didn't matter that Rasoul was terribly unqualified. It didn't matter that Rasoul barely met the age requirement. It didn't matter that Rick Howell, chair of the Bedford democrat Committee had already resigned from the Rasoul campaign and refused to endorse him. Getting the best representation for that district out of the candidates running didn't matter to the RTEB.
What mattered to the RTEB was that Rasoul was a liberal democrat. And, that's all that was required for the RTEB endorsement......
Comment by Bob H — September 1, 2009 @ 12:27 pm
Here you go C. Ramsey. It has NOTHING to do with taking from the producers or the stalwarts or the wealthy or the elite...
http://www.accd.edu/sac/j-p/comfort.html
"The job of the newspaper is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable."
"The famous quote is about a hundred years old and can be traced to the work of Finley Peter Dunne, one of the great journalists of the day, who wrote about politics and culture in the voice and persona of an Irishman named "Mr. Dooley."
Comment by Sandi Saunders — September 1, 2009 @ 12:37 pm
I don't know why the RTEB endorsed Sam Rasoul over Goodlatte and I do not think you do either. Your partisan support is no less partisan because voters agree with you. The term limits was a big seller when he wanted in and then...not so much. Since the past is sooooo important to you on Webb's comments, again I find it odd that you so defend Goodlatte and now McDonnell. You assume to know so much about why they endorsed Rasoul, but the truth is that new blood will matter to you too when Webb, Robb, Kaine, and Obama are to be replaced...funny that?
I would imagine Goodlatte's record of being in lockstep with the nutbush/insanity (you're right Suzie, it is all giggles) regime and out of touch with his oen constituents had a lot to do with the endorsement.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — September 1, 2009 @ 12:43 pm
And here I thought the job or a newspaper or other media news outlet was to inform the recipient. Silly me. But, that does explain a lot. If a lot of journalists take that phrase to heart along with all the grandiose 'I'm going to help change the world' mantras spouted by their professors, it explains why objectivity is basically absent in most realms now. Newsprint, at least the news side, still remains one of the few areas that seems, at least to me, to be mostly bias-free in the reporting. However, bias can and often does creep in by way of editing out of facts or wording things differently to help carry the feelings of the writer/editor. Sometimes these biases shine as brightly as a Maglite, other times it's as hard to find as a needle in a haystack.
Comment by Other John — September 1, 2009 @ 12:49 pm
Sandi,
Goodlatte was first elected in 1992 (when BC ran). The term limits stuff was in 1994. I hate to get facts in the way but term limits were not an issue when he "got in".
And, like I say, the breaking of that pledge was an issue in the 2004 election. Should it also be one for every election afterwards? If so, I hope any challenger has more to run on because that strategy isn't working.
Robb has already been replaced. Quite a few years ago. His replacement has even been replaced....
Being lockstep with the Bush admin was (and is) no precursor to representation in congress. Goodlatte was elected on the BC wave of 92, and in the face of the blue BH0 wave of 08. People elect him and Boucher because they feel they are getting the representation they want.
Something the endorsement crowd on the RTEB seem to know little about.
Comment by Bob H — September 1, 2009 @ 1:57 pm
I'd love to know how many people are actually influenced by newspaper endorsements. I doubt many.
CRamsey "afflict the comfortable" doesn't mean anyone having their precious money taken away. It means challenging stagnant mindsets and encouraging broader thinking. This has nothing to do with envy, jealousy, loathing, etc. You'd be amazed...even some of those "do gooders" have good jobs, nice cars, and comfortable homes.
Comment by Kristen — September 1, 2009 @ 2:14 pm
Sorry Bob H, Term limits were very much on people's minds when he ran, THAT is why he pledged in the first place.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/termlimits/stories/will061892.htm
"A balanced budget amendment would be much less necessary if Congress's culture of spending were changed by term limits, which would change the motives and behavior of legislators. A term limitation amendment is currently bottled up in the hostile House Judiciary Committee, chaired by 20-term Jack Brooks, a Texas Democrat. Opponents of term limits say they oppose limits because they are "undemocratic." Opponents so love democracy they will not allow a vote on limits."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/termlimits/stories/will111091.htm
"The political ethics of today's permanent governing class do not restrain where the Constitution is permissive. Hence the cool appraisal behind today's hot passion: Term limits are needed as an auxiliary precaution against the perennial lust for power. About that lust, the authors of the Articles warned us."
When Dems are in control term limits talk is as predictable as sun in summer.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — September 1, 2009 @ 2:42 pm
Amazing how the RTEB is hammering Mcdonald on his 20 yr old thesis
but yet give Satomayor a pass on hers.
I wish that the RTEB would just say that they have a agenda.
They could care less about the past deeds of a democrat but will
ALWAYS continue to beat a dead horse of a Republican.
Doesnt matter Mcdonald just needs to stay the path, the economy needs
to stay where it is at and we will have him as Governor.
Of course I wish that either candidate would tell us what they
are going to try to accomplish and not harp on the past.
Comment by Herb Krebs — September 2, 2009 @ 5:16 am
Sotomayer was a Democrat. That's why she got a pass. I'm still waiting for the RTEB to insist on seeing Obama's thesis....if there was one.
Comment by Henry — September 2, 2009 @ 7:06 am
the economy needs
to stay where it is at
Herb, you really believe this?
Comment by Kristen — September 2, 2009 @ 7:25 am
Henry, how did Sotomayor get a pass?
Comment by allen bunch — September 2, 2009 @ 8:23 am
Sotomayor got a pass because the RTEB, the MSM and the people these folks most despise refused to go along with the mob and pull her remarks out of context and view every decision through the prism they set. Anyone who deviates from that tried and true method of "vetting" is considered to have given a pass to whomever is the object of scorn.
The right: have their own schools, their own colleges, their own TV networks, their own publishing empire, massive websites and sources on the www, their own cabal in DC, and they literally own talk radio to the point of it being worthless for the rest of us and yet because the MSM will not carry their water, they "can't get their message out". This would be funny except they actually still rail against the MSM for telling the truth. Sadly many people are not paying attention, but once they gain (and make no mistake, they are trying and having some success) the upper hand in the information business and have run out all the newspapers and denigrated the faith anyone has in the TV Networks, the only truth anyone will get will be via the underground. If you think these folks are a harmless bunch of old coots who want to horde their money and simply dislike the government, you are not paying attention. They are setting themselves up for a coup to end all coups and frankly there is precious little standing in their way. We gave ourselves a representative government, we schooled ourselves to trust those people (not necessarily the whole mind you) and even the most jaded Liberal will cut slack for a seemingly honest person. Trust me, the people who despise "government" and "social programs" and anyone who is not like them, WILL be back in charge and we have only ourselves to blame. Where is the support President Obama deserves? Where is the shout down for the kook screaming about the ruin of our nation? Where is our backbone?
Comment by Sandi Saunders — September 2, 2009 @ 8:51 am
Henry, FOIA applies to individuals as well as newspapers.
Comment by allen bunch — September 2, 2009 @ 9:13 am
Yes,
Kristen I do believe it.
Only to prove that Obama's policies of taxing
and govt run rpograms will not work.
If it stays like this. we win in 2010, hands down.
Comment by HERB KREBS — September 2, 2009 @ 9:52 am
Allen,
Sotomayor got a pass from the RTEB in 2 coulumns that dan
wrote.
First he did say that her opions were controversial
then in another coulumn he pointed to Sam alito's
speeches to condone sotomayor.
Why cant he know look at hers to ok Mcdonalds?
Comment by HERB KREBS — September 2, 2009 @ 9:54 am
Why is it that conservatives have such a hard time understanding an editorial page? Let's go through it one more time. The editorial page is not a news page. Many times it is and should be referred to as the OPINION page. You know what they say about opinions, everybody has one. Why do conservatives insist that other people agree with them. Are you saying that the editorial board has no right to an opinion? Are conservatives too tight to subscribe to the Harrisonburg paper? They will rubber stamp everyone of your opinions. They will tell you exactly what you want to hear. What is the problem?
Herb, would it be possible to get you to explain what you meant when you asked, "Why cant he know look at hers to ok Mcdonalds?"
Comment by allen bunch — September 2, 2009 @ 11:06 am
Allen,
What I am saying there is why Cant Dan agree on Mcdonald
as he did Sotomayor, she discriminated against a whole
race in her judgement, Mcdonald wrote a thesis 20yrs ago about
his opinion then. Big differance there.
His were words, hers were rulings.
As far as the RTEB having opionions I agree, but why always
so far to the left. They are hurting there very future employment.
More and more are turning to the internet and tired of the left wing
idealogs. I just wish there was a middle of the road paper here then the RT would not only lose jobs they would probably shut down.
Comment by HERB KREBS — September 2, 2009 @ 4:10 pm
Herb you are NO WHERE NEAR the middle of any road in this country so how can you say that a "middle of the road paper" would EVER satisfy you? I do not think you are being genuine or sincere in that request and frankly we have just that in TRT daily. YOU and some of your like minded friends do not like the Progressive slant of the EDITORIAL Department and you take it out on the whole paper. There are plenty of papers that cater to you and your friends.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — September 2, 2009 @ 4:32 pm
Herb #51...the market's up something like 30% from it's bottom last March. What about that makes you think there's a GOP win in there for you?
The GOP's biggest nightmare is if Obama's plans DO work. Sad that they're reduced ( sort of reduced) to rooting for their country's failure.
Comment by Kristen — September 2, 2009 @ 4:52 pm
#54: Herb, I tried to determine this as well. The RT is left because it's owned by elitist Frank Batten. When you are the world's 190th richest person, you can afford to implement rules to keep others from attaining wealth as well as focus on liberal elitist "give away" agendas. Think Soros.
Comment by Jim — September 2, 2009 @ 5:08 pm
Interesting Jim...we on the left are either money grubbing poverty stricken welfare queens, or wealthy "elitists".
I'm not sure when the term "elitist" became disparaging. From what I can gather, the right uses the term "elitist" to describe people who eat with a knife and fork while managing not to chew with their mouths open.
Comment by Kristen — September 2, 2009 @ 5:15 pm
#56: Are you insinuating that people are anywhere near whole from the losses sustained? 30% up from what? With a $9Trillion deficit to spend and wealth distribution, who couldn't make the market bounce TEMPORARILY? The question is one of sustainability. Anti-business policies combined with increased deficit and tax burdens ensure our future is dismal. At least billionaire Frank Batten will still have some dough.
Comment by Jim — September 2, 2009 @ 5:44 pm
The GOP use of the term "elitist" as a slur confuses me too. I only know about Frank Batten what I just looked up in Wikipedia. He started out in the family business (Virginian Pilot newspaper) and through hard work and risk taking innovation built it into a large media conglomerate, Landmark. Isn't this the type of "all-American" success story that Republicans supposedly celebrate? Frank Batten's biography is almost identical to that of Rupert Murdoch. (Obviously, Batten is much lesser known but not far behind in personal wealth.) The only difference is their personal politics and those of their better known newspapers. Is Murdoch an elitist also?
The most successful, dynamic company in America right now is almost certainly Google. Judging by political donations, their workforce is almost entirely Democratic. Does that make Google, an entrepreneurial dynamo, and its employees "elitist"? Republican alienation of such successful, hard working, well paid professional workers has been a key factor in the erosion of their support in the last decade.
Comment by KevinL — September 2, 2009 @ 8:58 pm
Herb, I thought I read all that stuff about Ms. Sotomayor, but I must have missed something. Which race did she discriminate against?
You say that the RTEB is jeopardizing it's future employment. Do you really believe they should print things they do not believe and compromise their values just to keep a job?
Comment by allen bunch — September 2, 2009 @ 9:04 pm
Kristen.
Ithink you need to get your facts straight even a 5th grader
can tell that 30% of 9500 is around 6150.
The market hasnt been there in almost 15 years.
Now who is talking without facts?
if your going to make a statement like that at least
use a calculator.
Comment by Herb Krebs — September 2, 2009 @ 9:05 pm
For what it's worth, when I refer to liberals as elitists, I am using the modern, commonly accepted definition that refers to one who believes they are deserving of favored treatment due to their perception of themselves as superior, either intellectually, socially or economically.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/elitist
Other words that could be used almost interchangeably are smug, arrogant or self-righteous. Kristen's definition is also humorous and thought-provoking, though most of the liberals I've known have been too busy patting themselves on the back to actually use a knife and fork.
Comment by C Ramsey — September 2, 2009 @ 9:29 pm
@ #63: Which just proves you do not know any Liberals.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — September 2, 2009 @ 9:42 pm
Thanks, C. Ramsey. So when I want to say that Conservatives are smug, arrogant, self-righteous elitists, I can just type "elitists" and you will know all those interchangeable words I leave out too? Great!
Comment by Sandi Saunders — September 2, 2009 @ 9:53 pm
"Ithink you need to get your facts straight even a 5th grader
can tell that 30% of 9500 is around 6150."
Need I say more?
Comment by Blue John — September 2, 2009 @ 10:48 pm
I don't think you need to worry about anyone missing your meaning in your posts Sandi. Your leanings and prejudices are quite clear. You may certainly use whatever vernacular you choose, but the elitist term doesn't really fit conservatives well. Most conservatives believe in having to work for what you get. They don't have that sense of entitlement that seems to plague the liberal elitists.
Comment by C Ramsey — September 2, 2009 @ 10:52 pm
@ 48: Allen, how can you ask "how did Sotomayor get a pass?" Roberts and Alito were hammered by the media, while all we heard about her was her "empathy" and "incredible story," two things that have no affect on being a good justice.
Comment by KSO — September 2, 2009 @ 11:55 pm
Allen,
You cant be serious about post 61.
She only discriminated against the whole white fire dept of
new haven conn.
Bj dont know how to take post 66, sorry should be aroubd
6400. Still cant remember when it was that low.
No Allen I dont think they should print things they dont believe
but I here lefties in here saying how bad foxnews is for leaning so far right. You cant get more left the the RTEB.
I am saying hire some people that are more in our views as well then you can have fair and balanced in here.
No wonder the country is so far apart.
Comment by Herb Krebs — September 3, 2009 @ 4:52 am
@Herb #62: Kristen.
Ithink you need to get your facts straight even a 5th grader
can tell that 30% of 9500 is around 6150.
First of all, 30 percent of 9500 is 2,850, which, of course, is completely irrelevant to what Kristen said. Kristen said the market is up 30 percent from its low. To determine the validity of that statement, you'd have to know what the low was. From what I can see, the Dow hit its low of 6,547.05 on March 9, 2009. A 30 percent gain from that would add 1,964 points, bringing it up to 8,511.
The Dow closed at 9,280 yesterday, meaning that, if anything, Kristen understated the gains.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — September 3, 2009 @ 7:15 am
Kristen #56
"Herb #51...the market's up something like 30% from it's bottom last March. What about that makes you think there's a GOP win in there for you?"
Yeah. Good idea. Democrats should run next year on the economy, how they added another $4 trillion to the deficit by then and how they achieved double-digit unemployment.
"The GOP's biggest nightmare is if Obama's plans DO work. Sad that they're reduced (sort of reduced) to rooting for their country's failure.
The only way 0bama's policies will "work" is if they are defeated. Not that Democrats won't try to take credit for a rising economy anyway. We saw that with Clinton. The first two years of his administration he was as socialist as 0bama, with the tax increases and socialized health care agenda. Then the GOP took over the ship and brought us unprecedented prosperity with tax cuts and spending cuts. And who was right there to take credit? Ol' Bubba himself.
Comment by Suzie — September 3, 2009 @ 8:12 am
C. Ramsey, I give you points for chutzpah, no doubt. "Most conservatives believe in having to work for what you get. They don't have that sense of entitlement that seems to plague the liberal elitists." I bet that is why you all have had so many "exclusive" clubs and organizations and cabals over the centuries that many maintain still today. You know, the ones that got people in trouble when it was revealed they "belonged"? I do not know how some of the insults that get thrown out here can come from anyone who knows how the world works. The "elite" in this country have always held themselves as being "above" and "separate" from the unclean masses and it has allowed them to perpetrate some mighty ugly goals and agendas as well as make fortunes. You cannot not know that, so the insult is as silly as it is demonstrative. Elite Liberals are no better and I will freely grant you that, but to pretend that Conservatives are the only people who "work for what they have" is as stupid and petty as you can get. I have worked since I was 18 years old and I have what I have because I worked for it. I do not condone anyone who lays on their butt and "collects" money from "disability" or any other program if they are able to work (and we all know that many many of them could). I also do not condone corporate welfare that helps the fat cats stay fat, happy and donating. There is MUCH wrong in this country, not the least of which is the ignorance and lies people debate with.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — September 3, 2009 @ 8:59 am
I believe unemployment stats are completely overrated... there are thousands and thousands of jobs out there to be had. Yes, there are people who have lost their jobs, not of their own (un)doing... but with so many positions available, one has to wonder, how many people are now unemployed because they choose to be? With handouts, bailouts, watching tv while your future president promises to pay for someones mortgage because they are unemployed, or pay for their gas, or watching some teenager give up his job because 0bama is going to become president, im sure there are many many people who have simply said, 'well it seems i dont have to work any more... i will have health insurance, i can file for bankruptcy...etc'
Its a sad sad state of things when people here are crying about unemployment and the pitiful job section of the RT has 700+ jobs available?!?!?
Comment by Marked man (mark) — September 3, 2009 @ 9:03 am