Bern

Ho hum. I've only heard this over twenty times the last two weeks. I'm more worried about McCain and his close association with and professed admiration of the convicted felon and wannabee terrorist G Gordon Liddy: Liddy served four and a half years in prison in connection with his conviction for his role in the Watergate break-in and the break-in at the office of the psychiatrist of Daniel Ellsberg, the military analyst who leaked the Pentagon Papers. Liddy has acknowledged preparing to kill someone during the Ellsberg break-in “if necessary”; plotting to murder journalist Jack Anderson; plotting with a “gangland figure” to murder Howard Hunt to stop him from cooperating with investigators; plotting to firebomb the Brookings Institution; and plotting to kidnap “leftist guerillas” at the 1972 Republican National Convention — a plan he outlined to the Nixon administration using terminology borrowed from the Nazis. On Liddy's radio show: On his admiration for the Fuhrer: This is the guy that John McCain describes as an old friend, gushing on his radio show that "I'm proud of you, I'm proud of your family. It's always a pleasure for me to come on your program, Gordon, and congratulations on your continued success and adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great." So what principles and philosophies did McCain like about Libby? His love of Hitler? His support of killing Federal agents? His Ellsberg break-in? His willingness to kill break in witnesses and many others in the 70's? The admiration is mutual. Libby has given money many times to McCain which McCain has happily accepted. If McCain were not a politician and not from a prominent family, knowing the above, McCain would not even get the security clearance to be a toilet cleaner in a Federal building.

If Obama were aware and if he were as ruthless and underhanded as some make him out to be, he would have taken care of this non-issue before the media got hold of it. He could have sent her to Kenya awhile ago. I call this a non-issue because everyone has family members or acquaintances who are not perfect. Obama can't be expected to keep track of every member of his extended family. For the right to make such an issue over this when we have real problems in need of solution, just demonstrates their intellectual and moral bankruptcy.

Youre statement is ridiculous. Stock prices are down all over, newspaper circulation has gone down all over and many blue chip companies are laying off. The NY Times has done much better than the right wing rags such as the NY Post (Murdoch has to subsidize it) or the now defunct NY Sun.

Interestingly even though Stevens is a convicted felon, he will be able to vote in this election. The Alaska state government ruled that Stevens will not lose his right to vote until sentencing. I don't know if that is normal or it is a "last minute interpretation" of the rules to benefit a politician. I was under the impression once convicted you lose your voting rights (in states that remove it for felons). That should save Stevens and the Republican party the embarrassment of one of their criminal Senators being unable to vote.

So, what do you think?

Not really. Their antics over the past several years show us its time the Republican party disappears. The majority no longer supporting them is a good sign. They are reduced - only racists, the scared and other mentally challenged still take that party seriously.

He's still working at it. It seems the counting requires fingers from more than one hand.

And it gets better 22,800 for two weeks of makeup work on Sarah. 10,000 for 1/2 a month of hairstyling service for Sarah.

Nice. A 2,500 dollar Valentino jacket. A Louis Vuitton bag for their seven year old kid. I wonder how those Republican suckers feel, those who gave 5, 10, 15, 25, to find that over 150,000 of their donations have been spent on haute couture fashion accessories at the boudoirs of the elite.

The point is that this is a Republican newspaper in small town very Republican America. Aggieland, the heart of Texas, the Republican party core where they voted Bush/Kerry 70 to 30%. Don't assume this is the decision of one editor. The editors are part of the community and small town newspapers are dependent upon the good will of their community for their revenue. Picking a Democrat in that enviroment tells me a lot about the loss of Republican party influence.

Very true. We had a push in Science and Engineering during the 60's and 70's. After the Reagan revolution, science was no longer popular. Now the big educational debate is should we or should we not teach intelligent design.

McCain does seem to be ahead with his support for nuclear. Petroleum is a complex mix of chemicals which can be broken down and converted to complex lubricants and base chemicals for many of our manufacturing processes. I always thought it "wasteful"' to simply burn it when other options are available. The difference between the latest generation nuclear plants and the "old" plants we have in the USA is like day and night because of many technological advances. Its like personal computers - the most expensive ones from 20 years ago don't have 1% of the power or features of the cheapest ones made today. France is sitting in the catbird seat. They invested heavily in nuclear power. Over 80% of their electricity is nuclear and they often export (sell) their electricity to Italy. If we converted to nuclear and invested in a decent distribution system, we could supply all our houses with electric lighting and heat. We would no longer need gas and oil burning furnaces. Also, McCain's ethanol subsidy policy is better than Obama's. McCain does not believe in subsidy, Obama does. If we're going to be burning fuel for heat or energy, then use petroleum (until we convert to nuclear). The product already exists. Its been converted by nature from plants. You already got nature to do the work. Why should we redo the whole conversion just to get ethanol? It doesn't make any sense. Farming is a very resource intensive activity. To get good production you need lots of water, you need pesticides and fertilizers. All this to grow corn (or whatever) and then you have to chemically convert the corn to ethanol. Its very wasteful and environmentally unfriendly.

Its not his sounding board. Most of us are interested in these issues. What happens nationally affects everyone locally. And who said that Kearny on the Web postings should be restricted to local town issues? That would make for a rather boring forum. If you're so worried about the lack of local town postings, then why don't you post something? I'm sure you can find something local to whine about.

Here's a paper which has not endorsed a Democrat in 70 years endorsing Obama. The Eagle, Texas - http://www.theeagle.com/editorial/Barack-O...e-for-president

It seems you have a literacy problem. As stated in the first post, many papers supporting Obama are NOT left wing. I'll help you. Here is a list of some Obama supporters: The New York Daily News The LA Times (the last time they supported a president was in 1972 - Richard Nixon) The Chicago Tribune (they never supported a Democrat before) Reality is not your strong point, is it?

1. Restoring the markets and preventing a depression The markets have become a big gambling casino. Maybe I’m too conservative but I believe stocks should be bought and sold on the basis of a companies profitability, where the dividends really determine the price of the stock. Instead we had ridiculous stock prices for companies that do not pay dividends and that rarely buy back their stock. Then there is the gambling aspect, such selling stocks short or some of these weird indexes they have come up with. All that tends to destabilize the market. We know how we got out of the great depression. Word War II was the driving force where everyone was employed, either in the military or at home (including many housewives). This was made possible by deficit spending during WW II. The difference between WWII deficit spending (on employees and industrial production) and current deficit spending is that the money stayed in the country. It recycled over and over boosting our WW II economy. We need to do the same. However, we don’t need a war. We can create a lot of employment rebuilding our infrastructure, rail, highways, bridges, airports, schools. Just about everything needs to be fixed up. But keep the money in the country. Use American manufacturing to supply the needed material. 2. Developing alternative, sustainable energy sources so we can become energy independent This ties into the above. Besides rebuilding our infrastructure we can build new things. Too many projects are held up because some don’t like things in their back yard or lack of focus. We need to get rid of the NIMBY nonsense. We can focus. We’ve done it before and we can do it again. 3. Ending the Iraq war Obviously. The Iraqi’s will never step up if we keep on giving them a blank check. Its like being addicted to welfare. It is also disgraceful that we’re funding the rebuilding (inefficiently) of their infrastructure while ours is neglected. 4. Gathering the international community to root out and destroy the threat of radical Islamic terrorism Which takes intelligent political leadership without the “we know best” hubris. 5. Secure and responsible health care for all Besides social issues it is also a competitive economic issue. If I can build a car for 1,500 less in Canada because my employee costs are lower due to lowered health care costs, I will build my car factory in Canada, not in the US. 6. A major national push on education, especially in mathematics and the sciences We had that in the 1960’s after Russia did their Sputnik. We heavily funded science education through the Federal NDEA program. The rewards were that we excelled in science and engineering. Now we have fallen behind where the most advanced physics is done in Europe, math and computer science is done in India and a lot of computer engineering is done in China. We need to reeducate the young and make them understand (maybe their parents too) that science and engineering is the future. Instead, the current thing it is to become a sports hero, an artist, a business major, an administrator. . . 11. Reversing the trend toward right-leaning, ideologically-driven radicalism of the federal courts You can only do that by replacing judges. A new congress and president can do a lot, if given time. I don’t know how many vacancies there are currently. I suggest that the senate block Bush’s nominations considering that Bush is a lame duck who has lost the support of the American populace. His choices do not reflect the will of the electorate.

Voter suppression has always been around. However, the Republicans are the experts. Previous campaigns have shown that large numbers of voters have been disenfranchised due to erroneous felon lists or clerical mistakes. We are now more aware of this because of the wide dissemination of this information through the internet. Obama has a lot of campaign money. He should reserve a substantial amount for attorneys and travel expenses that may be needed after the election. One reason Republicans won Florida in 2000 was that the election they saturated the state with their attorneys and party hacks flown in from all over the country. They overwhelmed the local Gore campaign and all the local election boards. It also helped them that the top Florida election official, Kathleen Harris, was Bush's Florida campaign co-chair.

Notice that McCain's response over Joe the "plumber" is completely different on Letterman's show which has a national audience vs the rally of his supporters. Snake is a more apt description of McCain.

After seeing the antics of the Republicans over this economic crisis, the slimy swift boating of Obama over his association with Ayers and other assorted so-called terrorists, the Palin hate rallies, I'm now convinced that the Republicans will never change. They will always appeal to the basest instincts, go to the lowest common denominator. I'm now hoping that Obama will win the presidency by a large margin (so we don't have to listen to the Obama did not get a real mandate crap from neocon Republicans) and that the Democrats will get at least 60 seats in the Senate. Cut out the obstruction by letting the Democrats have absolute control of the executive and legislative branches and see if they produce. The Republicans had their run. And we know what that got us.

After seeing the antics of the Republicans over this economic crisis, the slimy swift boating of Obama over his association with Ayers and other assorted so-called terrorists, the Palin hate rallies, I'm now convinced that the Republicans will never change. They will always appeal to the basest instincts, go to the lowest common denominator. I'm now hoping that Obama will win the presidency by a large margin (so we don't have to listen to the Obama did not get a real mandate crap from neocon Republicans) and that the Democrats will get at least 60 seats in the Senate. Cut out the obstruction by letting the Democrats have absolute control of the executive and legislative branches and see if they produce. The Republicans had their run. And we know what that got us.

I'm not surprised. Its now very obvious that McCain does not have the competency to run the country. After all, if you can't run a campaign, how can you run the country. His organization and leadership skills are completely over-matched by Obama I quote the arch conservative William Kristol This should give us a hint of the type of administration we will get if McCain becomes president.

Many Republicans are living in a state of denial. They can't admit to themselves that they can lose the election because their party and candidate have lost the support of most Americans. Instead, they create this myth or belief that Republicans really have the majority support to win and if Obama wins it is because of fraud. Then they can go to their beer halls or wherever they hang out and console each other with "but you know we are really the majority." Pitiful.

Really!! Even the Republicans are saying there is no fraud. It took me all of one minute to find that.

I agree. This is just a desperation tactic.

At least we still have social security. If we listened to Bush when he wanted to move the trust fund into the stock market by privatizing it we would also have lost that. We wouldn't be in such a mess if the congress approved the 700 billion dollar bail out the day it was requested and the bail out money was used immediately. The two week credit lock really screwed up all the markets. Thank you congressional Republicans for again screwing the country. We would have been in much better fiscal shape if Bush continued the fiscal conservatism of the Clinton presidency. Instead, he ran a 500 billion a year deficit (funded by the Chinese). This 700 billion bail out on top of all his previous budget deficits is the killer. The Republican mantra of spend and don't tax. I don't know why so many think we can get a free ride. However, don't count too much on the Democrats. Both parties enabled these wall street slick boys in their games. And the democrats haven't tried to balance the budget since they took over congress in 2006.