Obama's 1st election mud

[Bob]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/29/obamas.first.campaign/index.html Removing your opposition on technicalities, and giving the voters one choice.

[Bob]

Is this CNN article a drive by? Do we have a different kind of candidate here?

[InletBchOwnr]

It ain't a tea party; it is a political battle waged on all fronts by politicians who not just wish to be elected but plan for it, work towards it, are driven to win elections that place them where they want to be.

Chicago politics and Texas politics, Michigan politics and California politics, Tennessee politics and Oregon politics are the same; a candidate does what will serve them best from the mid-nineteeth century until today, all elections and politicians use tactics and devices learned from past elections, honed, codified by their predecessors.

I am not naive, nor am I easily led, and I have my candidate firmly in my head. I understand the process through working in various campaigns in the past. I may not be an expert but I have some understanding. McCain, Clinton and Obama will employ people and processes and tactics that best suit them to be elected. We may not like the candidate or the processes or the tactics, we may find them abhorrent to our own personal code, but they are reality in our current political system. To attack one candidate for his or her past tactics is a slippery slope and is generally fueled by the other sides political team through "leaks", unattributable news releases, lobbyist lunches, press releases, dirty tricks and underhanded methods m- all acceptable in this day and age.

So whatever Obama did to secure his position in Chicago means nothing, not whatever happens to the Fla and Mich Demo's who disobeyed party rules, agreed upon by all parties prior to being slapped with penalties, and not to whatever happens between now their convention. My view only.

[rapunzel]

The incumbent had decided to run for Congress, and had encouraged Obama to run for the spot. She had endorsed him, supported him, and had even given him a list of donors. At the last moment of qualifying, she decided she would not be able to win the Congressional seat and decided to run against Obama. Many of her supporters were enthusiastically supporting Obama, and to get the signatures she cut corners, paid someone to collect signatures who was not eligible, and didn't have enough signatures.

Obama didn't start the ugly in that campaign, but he also didn't just stand there and take it. I don't know why anyone would hold that against him.

Unless, of course, they were a nasty little supporter of the opposing candidate who wanted to post something negative, some half-truth to tarnish the image of Barack Obama. Unless that person chose to tear one candidate down, rather than build one up. I'm looking at you, Bob.

[Bob]

The incumbent had decided to run for Congress, and had encouraged Obama to run for the spot. She had endorsed him, supported him, and had even given him a list of donors. At the last moment of qualifying, she decided she would not be able to win the Congressional seat and decided to run against Obama. Many of her supporters were enthusiastically supporting Obama, and to get the signatures she cut corners, paid someone to collect signatures who was not eligible, and didn't have enough signatures.

Obama didn't start the ugly in that campaign, but he also didn't just stand there and take it. I don't know why anyone would hold that against him.

Unless, of course, they were a nasty little supporter of the opposing candidate who wanted to post something negative, some half-truth to tarnish the image of Barack Obama. Unless that person chose to tear one candidate down, rather than build one up. I'm looking at you, Bob.Punzy, back at you. CNN wrote the article, not me, and it is clear Obama eliminated all the competition in that election before the vote. Your candidate has the same flaws as the other candidates, and the media has fawned over him with little scrutiny. This will probably change after the convention. I am purposely throwing this out there for discussion, but there are few posts because someone may be behaving like a goalie, not a moderator.

[Mango]

I do not consider a linked article from a national press agency as engaging in drive by posting of untruths. Matter of fact, anything anyone says, posts, or links, especially press, will always have a slant by the author. This is the reality of the world we live in. But, as a forum, we can all agree to disagree that personal attacks against another, with the use of adjectives and the like, is considered in poor taste.

[Bob]

I agree, but when a moderator says they're "watching you" for posting said article, that's just blatant intimidation for all on the board to see. Last I checked, it's not SowalObama.com, is it? I can and have posted shortcomings of Hillary and John, but anything critical about Obama brings out the thought police. Is it all so darn serious that we are going to cannibalize our relationships based upon one election?

[Mango]

I agree, but when a moderator says they're "watching you" for posting said article, that's just blatant intimidation for all on the board to see. Last I checked, it's not SowalObama.com, is it? I can and have posted shortcomings of Hillary and John, but anything critical about Obama brings out the thought police. Is it all so darn serious that we are going to cannibalize our relationships based upon one election?

Honestly Bob, since we all love you so much, I thought Punzy was jiving you. I think we forget, moderators or not, that there are over 7K members, and many lurkers who read these threads, may not know the relationships we have. That being said, it can seem that this Board is pro-left, and that Obama to some is like the second coming of Christ. I think all you have been trying to point out is that he is human, like everyone else, with all our associated shortcomings. We've seen the idolization of other candidates as well in the past. Nothing new. In order to have effective arguments, debate and discussions, that has to be taken out of the equation. Since we are all human as well, I think we forget to do that sometimes, myself included.

[30A Skunkape]

I don't think she is watching Bob from a moderator's perspective. She said she was 'looking' at Bob as a potential 'supporter of the opposing candidate who wanted to post something negative, some half-truth to tarnish the image of Barack Obama'.

We were watching CNN last night when this piece aired. I was thinking, 'my goodness, that doesn't sound like the wholesome Obama I am familiar with'. But there is a HUGE 'rest of the story' to this (as Paul Harvey would say). After the segment was aired, Campbell Brown had David Axelrod from Obama's campaign on. Axelrod debunked this biased story in about three sentences. Campbell looked like a deer in the headlights when she realized what a piece of junk this 'shocking' piece on Obama was. I will try to find it and post it.

[rapunzel]

Well, Bob, I have stated my desire to steer the forum positive and informative. We all know your perspective. I don't think you posted this with altruistic motives, but if I'm incorrect about that I apologize.

If I am going to refrain from posting hit pieces on McCain, and linking stories about him not knowing the difference between Shia and Sunni (even though I realize he was jetlagged), then I think it is fair that I come out and defend Obama when someone is willing to go there. That's not biased, and that's not being a "goalie". It's just completing the story. I can either complete the story or lob half-truths against McCain or stay silent while people unfairly smear a candidate I happen to support.

Which of these is the moderator-appropriate, high road approach?

[traderx]

I am somewhat of a tyro on this board and would like to ask a serious question.

What one reads a post by a member who is a mod, how do you know what is posted as a member or as a mod? If a post violates the rules or SoWal.com community standards, will that be called out in the forum or via a PM?

Thanks.

[goofer44]

I agree, but when a moderator says they're "watching you" for posting said article, that's just blatant intimidation for all on the board to see. Last I checked, it's not SowalObama.com, is it? I can and have posted shortcomings of Hillary and John, but anything critical about Obama brings out the thought police. Is it all so darn serious that we are going to cannibalize our relationships based upon one election?

The old saying that politics and religion are topics to be avoided if you wish to maintain friendships, is true. We all have to be a little less sensitive to criticism of the candidates we have chosen to support, and more sensitive to our remarks when we respond to the critic,

[Bob]

I love your passion[within reason] and respect your enthusiasm. You can't possibly know who I'm going to vote for, because I have not decided. I have campaigned for no one. My "perspective" is to not take your candidate too seriously because they all have warts. I heard many times in the last 2 elections that one person or the other was voting for the lesser of two evils. My feeling is here we go again. I also believe the Democratic party has split itself into two pieces. The Republican party is so wounded they can't nominate a true Republican. Let us enlighten up.

[kurt]

I am somewhat of a tyro on this board and would like to ask a serious question.

What one reads a post by a member who is a mod, how do you know what is posted as a member or as a mod? If a post violates the rules or SoWal.com community standards, will that be called out in the forum or via a PM?

Thanks.

If you have a problem with a post, or a question about one, click the "report post" icon and spell out the reason.

[traderx]

I have no problem with any post and wouldn't report a post even if I did.

I got curious after reading an above exchange because it is impossible, at least for me, to ascertain whether a mod is responding as a mod or a member. Just trying to understand the culture and rules here a little better.

Thanks.

[InletBchDweller]

I will just keep my mouth shut and:popcorn:

[scooterbug44]

The woman wanting to run against Obama didn't follow the rules, he called her on it, and he became the Democratic candidate.

She now works for the Hillary campaign and apparently enjoys deja vu! :biggrin:

[Andy A.]

I will just keep my mouth shut and:popcorn:
If you don't mind, I think I'll join you.

[DD]

I have no problem with any post and wouldn't report a post even if I did.

I got curious after reading an above exchange because it is impossible, at least for me, to ascertain whether a mod is responding as a mod or a member. Just trying to understand the culture and rules here a little better.

Thanks.

I post as a member. If I see a post that is inappropriate, I report post. If I have a real issue, I might PM the person. :wave:

[cp]

If you don't mind, I think I'll join you.
and me too......:wave:

[kurt]

I have no problem with any post and wouldn't report a post even if I did.

I got curious after reading an above exchange because it is impossible, at least for me, to ascertain whether a mod is responding as a mod or a member. Just trying to understand the culture and rules here a little better.

Thanks.

If each thing had its own box, this forum would be tiny, and the only smilie would be :welcome:

[traderx]

If each thing had its own box, this forum would be tiny, and the only smilie would be :welcome:


I don't know what this means...:idontno:

[jdarg]

I agree, but when a moderator says they're "watching you" for posting said article, that's just blatant intimidation for all on the board to see. Last I checked, it's not SowalObama.com, is it? I can and have posted shortcomings of Hillary and John, but anything critical about Obama brings out the thought police. Is it all so darn serious that we are going to cannibalize our relationships based upon one election?

Bob, I don't agree. I think Rapunzel made her post as a board member expressing her opinion and pointing out what she considered an error, and wanted to set the record straight, which everyone wants to do when they read a mistruth or a warp of the truth. I saw calling you out as a volley back- as in "Hey Bob- your turn. Gimme something better than that!"

Turning the exchange into something more was unfortunate, fueled by others (who don't have a dog in the hunt in the first place, so their only point is to annoy), and only served to bring out the usual drive-bys, which does nothing but make a political thread look "cheap" and "dumbed down".

I hope the moderators are be able to continue posting as members because of what they had to say on the board before they were moderators- I look forward to reading most moderator posts (OK- don't get feelings hurt here) and would hate if they feel like they can't express themselves because someone is critical of the moderator role.

I wish I had the drive and passion for politics and the political process that others on this board possess- both Democrat and Republican- it has been a great learning experience and while there has been the expected heated conversations, most of the political players on this board interact with each other no differently than on TV or in the press. :lol:

[elgordoboy]

The incumbent had decided to run for Congress, and had encouraged Obama to run for the spot. She had endorsed him, supported him, and had even given him a list of donors. At the last moment of qualifying, she decided she would not be able to win the Congressional seat and decided to run against Obama. Many of her supporters were enthusiastically supporting Obama, and to get the signatures she cut corners, paid someone to collect signatures who was not eligible, and didn't have enough signatures.

Obama didn't start the ugly in that campaign, but he also didn't just stand there and take it. I don't know why anyone would hold that against him.

Unless, of course, they were a nasty little supporter of the opposing candidate who wanted to post something negative, some half-truth to tarnish the image of Barack Obama. Unless that person chose to tear one candidate down, rather than build one up. I'm looking at you, Bob.

Punzy, back at you. CNN wrote the article, not me, and it is clear Obama eliminated all the competition in that election before the vote. Your candidate has the same flaws as the other candidates, and the media has fawned over him with little scrutiny. This will probably change after the convention. I am purposely throwing this out there for discussion, but there are few posts because someone may be behaving like a goalie, not a moderator.
These two posts represent political discourse I can find engaging. And while I absolutely love the turn of phrase "behaving like a goalie, not a moderator" I must wonder if that is based on this topic (and I would have to disagree) or have there been "blocked shots" of which I am unaware? (honest question)

I agree, but when a moderator says they're "watching you" for posting said article, that's just blatant intimidation for all on the board to see. Last I checked, it's not SowalObama.com, is it? I can and have posted shortcomings of Hillary and John, but anything critical about Obama brings out the thought police. Is it all so darn serious that we are going to cannibalize our relationships based upon one election?
As Rapunzel's post was not addressed to me I detected no attempt at intimidation, at least none using a mod status. There may be some fundamental issues with moderatorhood that will be explored as we move forward. Can a moderator stay clean and maintain impartiality while playing in the turdies with the rest of us birdies? :idontno:

Well, Bob, I have stated my desire to steer the forum positive and informative. We all know your perspective. I don't think you posted this with altruistic motives, but if I'm incorrect about that I apologize.

If I am going to refrain from posting hit pieces on McCain, and linking stories about him not knowing the difference between Shia and Sunni (even though I realize he was jetlagged), then I think it is fair that I come out and defend Obama when someone is willing to go there. That's not biased, and that's not being a "goalie". It's just completing the story. I can either complete the story or lob half-truths against McCain or stay silent while people unfairly smear a candidate I happen to support.

Which of these is the moderator-appropriate, high road approach?
I am a semi educated adult and as such I have my own built in filters. I do not wish to be "steered". Negativity has its place and can be just as informative as postivitiy. I am slightly afraid of "don't think you posted this with altruistic motives", what has altruism got to do with it? As far as McCain not knowing the difference between Shia and Sunni, maybe it was jet lag but maybe not. Post it (and stuff like that) and let me decide..don't decide for me please. Really please not a smart a$$ please.

[jdarg]

Can a moderator stay clean and maintain impartiality while playing in the turdies with the rest of us birdies? :idontno:



If that is what is required of our moderators, then that reduces them to babysitter status, in my opinion. All of them have too much to offer and interesting personalities and mindsets to reduce them to "board police" status. I hope it doesn't go this way.:(

[rapunzel]

I am a semi educated adult and as such I have my own built in filters. I do not wish to be "steered". Negativity has its place and can be just as informative as postivitiy. I am slightly afraid of "don't think you posted this with altruistic motives", what has altruism got to do with it? As far as McCain not knowing the difference between Shia and Sunni, maybe it was jet lag but maybe not. Post it (and stuff like that) and let me decide..don't decide for me please. Really please not a smart a$$ please.

I can only guess that you didn't see the political forum last time around. It was a mean-spirited verbal smackdown, and discussions of any complexity were impossible.

People are free to post whatever they want, negative or not. I don't see it as being a goalie to post the other half of a story. I would do the same if it were a blast of John McCain. It is my deeply held belief that the negative is not informative. Perhaps done in a compare and contrast, or an attack of a stand on and issue -- and I enjoy discussing those and don't consider them negative attacks. But the snarky posts, the off topic nonsense, and the purposely misleading stuff -- it's just not productive. Politics isn't about picking a team and rooting for them to win, win, win! -- it's about leading out community, and our country. The negativity really turns off most people, and leads to a disconnected electorate. The nasty tone of many politcal forums, and the single viewpoint of others, is the obvious result of unchecked negativity.

I'm fairly active on board called Daily Kos, and it's very informative and engaging and is cited by the media fairly often. It has a huge membership and a good deal of influence in progressive circles. It's also somewhat boring compared to this forum. It's been fantastic to be able to interact with political junkies and the mildy interested voter alike. It's interesting to go back and forth with conservatives. There is something special about this forum in it's diversity of political thought and engagement that I haven't found elsewhere.

I realize now that perhaps everyone has not seen Meet the Parents ad nauseum, and lots of people didn't catch the irony of my "I'm looking at you" comment. I'm bad about throwing out movie quotes to reference popular culture and help make a point -- something all that diversity makes hard to do. I should stick to smileys...but I just really don't like those things.

[jdarg]

Circle of Trust....:floor:are you in the circle?:lol:

[Bob]

DeNiro worked for the CIA

[jdarg]

DeNiro worked for the CIA

Alright then- you can be the Owen Wilson character. He was in "the circle".

[BeachSiO2]

Alright then- you can be the Owen Wilson character. He was in "the circle".

:wave: Can I be the Owen Wilson character from Starsky and Hutch?

[jdarg]

:wave: Can I be the Owen Wilson character from Starsky and Hutch?


OK, fine.:roll:

[6thGen]

Can I post something purely speculative? I think we're going to find out that Obama's mobbed up. This isn't based on anything but an educated guess, but we know that 1) he's a product of the Chicago machine, which has had mob ties for decades, 2) he associates with shady characters (Ayers, Wright, Fleger, the marxists who endorsed him for Senate, Rezko), and 3) he's cozying up to unions (and especially to the Teamsters, run by Jimmy Hoffa Jr., whom he believes should have less oversight). I'm not saying he's ever had anybody clipped, but it wouldn't surprise me if there was a more than peripheral connection to the Outfit in Obama's past (or present).

[rapunzel]

Can I post something purely speculative? I think we're going to find out that Obama's mobbed up. This isn't based on anything but an educated guess, but we know that 1) he's a product of the Chicago machine, which has had mob ties for decades, 2) he associates with shady characters (Ayers, Wright, Fleger, the marxists who endorsed him for Senate, Rezko), and 3) he's cozying up to unions (and especially to the Teamsters, run by Jimmy Hoffa Jr., whom he believes should have less oversight). I'm not saying he's ever had anybody clipped, but it wouldn't surprise me if there was a more than peripheral connection to the Outfit in Obama's past (or present).
http://www.growingtreetoys.com/images/products/bg/017375.jpg
It's all tee'd up....who's gonna take it?

[Bob]

we want to know about the wizard....please

[scooterbug44]

Can I post something purely speculative? I think we're going to find out that Obama's mobbed up. This isn't based on anything but an educated guess, but we know that 1) he's a product of the Chicago machine, which has had mob ties for decades, 2) he associates with shady characters (Ayers, Wright, Fleger, the marxists who endorsed him for Senate, Rezko), and 3) he's cozying up to unions (and especially to the Teamsters, run by Jimmy Hoffa Jr., whom he believes should have less oversight). I'm not saying he's ever had anybody clipped, but it wouldn't surprise me if there was a more than peripheral connection to the Outfit in Obama's past (or present).

Obama's from Chicago, so he's Mobbed up? Um, have you noticed the other candidate is from New York?

I seriously doubt Obama is Mafia, but if he was, I'd prefer the Mob to lobbyists!

Of course he's connected to the unions - he's a Democrat from a city with a ton of unions!

Seriously, you think Reverend Wright is in the Mob? :funn:

[Geo]

Can I post something purely speculative? I think we're going to find out that Obama's mobbed up. This isn't based on anything but an educated guess, but we know that 1) he's a product of the Chicago machine, which has had mob ties for decades, 2) he associates with shady characters (Ayers, Wright, Fleger, the marxists who endorsed him for Senate, Rezko), and 3) he's cozying up to unions (and especially to the Teamsters, run by Jimmy Hoffa Jr., whom he believes should have less oversight). I'm not saying he's ever had anybody clipped, but it wouldn't surprise me if there was a more than peripheral connection to the Outfit in Obama's past (or present).

6th Gen,

I am from the South Side of Chicago as well...

We often get accused of having ties to shady characters but I can assure you that this isn't the case for Senator Obama. In fact, some associates of mine would like to drop by this evening to further clarify. Will you be home around 7? Don't worry, we already know who you are and where you live. See you soon...

:lol:
:clap:

[6thGen]

6th Gen,

I am from the South Side of Chicago as well...

We often get accused of having ties to shady characters but I can assure you that this isn't the case for Senator Obama. In fact, some associates of mine would like to drop by this evening to further clarify. Will you be home around 7? Don't worry, we already know who you are and where you live. See you soon...

:lol:
:clap:

Tell them I don't have the whitey tape and that they need to focus their search elsewhere.

[Tootsie]

I love your passion[within reason] and respect your enthusiasm. You can't possibly know who I'm going to vote for, because I have not decided. I have campaigned for no one. My "perspective" is to not take your candidate too seriously because they all have warts. I heard many times in the last 2 elections that one person or the other was voting for the lesser of two evils. My feeling is here we go again. I also believe the Democratic party has split itself into two pieces. The Republican party is so wounded they can't nominate a true Republican. Let us enlighten up.

hey there Bob. I think you needed a nap the other day. otherwise, I do agree with you overall. obama is not Jesus. but is as close as we are going to get. right?

really, I get what you are saying.

meanwhile, I hope punzy will continue posting her knowledge and opinions as a sowal member. while steering political discussions to be sure they remain thoughtful, positive and informative. its a thankless job, I know.

Circle of Trust....:floor:are you in the circle?:lol:

:floor::floor::floor:

[Bob]

Tootsie, your back! positive and informative? all at once? That's like everyone coming to a complete stop at the Seagrove 4 way. positive and informative? I'm reminded of Carlin saying one day in his life, just one day, he was both fine and dandy. positive and informative....how about semi-illuminating and somewhat telling?

[Tootsie]

Tootsie, your back! positive and informative? all at once? That's like everyone coming to a complete stop at the Seagrove 4 way. positive and informative? I'm reminded of Carlin saying one day in his life, just one day, he was both fine and dandy. positive and informative....how about semi-illuminating and somewhat telling?

all of the above bobbie. positive and informative. its surely possible, or at least a worthy goal among friends, isn't it? perhaps just respectful dialog would do the trick. then we would all be just fine and/or dandy. and yes, semi-illuminating and somewhat telling also apply, as in all forums.

:wave:good to see you too.

[6thGen]

Questions Obama Needs to Be Asked [Mark Hemingway]


Barack Obama is going to be on with Brian Williams tonight, so I thought I'd start up the first of a periodic series here on The Corner where I suggest questions that the media might consider asking Obama:

Question: On your website you have listed Illinois State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias as a "bundler", having committed to raising between $100-200k for your campaign. He's also held fund raisers for your presidential campaign and he and his family have donated a considerable sum directly to your various campaigns and you endorsed his candidacy for state treasurer.

In 2006, while running for office Giannoulias admitted he personally oversaw the approval of $11.8 million in mortgage loans at his family bank to Michael Giorango, a convicted bookmaker and prostitution promoter, and $3.6 million of those loans were used by Giorango and another convicted felon to acquire a casino boat marina in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. Giannoulias' family bank made other loans to Giorango going back to 1992, and his involvement in those loans has also been questioned.

What's more, while running for state treasurer in 2006, Giannoulias received a $5,000 campaign contribution from a Florida casino owner who owed $4.8 million to a bank Giannoulias has a stake in, and the Casino owner's uncle had ties to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and was gunned down in what appears to be a mob hit.

Are you confident Giannoulias doesn't have ties to organized crime, and should he be raising money for your campaign?

[rapunzel]

I guess that's why some candidates prefer to have a bunch of lobbyists raise the money for them....you know, so there's no whiff of impropriety or anything. :rofl:

[Geo]

Questions Obama Needs to Be Asked [Mark Hemingway]


Barack Obama is going to be on with Brian Williams tonight, so I thought I'd start up the first of a periodic series here on The Corner where I suggest questions that the media might consider asking Obama:

Question: On your website you have listed Illinois State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias as a "bundler", having committed to raising between $100-200k for your campaign. He's also held fund raisers for your presidential campaign and he and his family have donated a considerable sum directly to your various campaigns and you endorsed his candidacy for state treasurer.

In 2006, while running for office Giannoulias admitted he personally oversaw the approval of $11.8 million in mortgage loans at his family bank to Michael Giorango, a convicted bookmaker and prostitution promoter, and $3.6 million of those loans were used by Giorango and another convicted felon to acquire a casino boat marina in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. Giannoulias' family bank made other loans to Giorango going back to 1992, and his involvement in those loans has also been questioned.

What's more, while running for state treasurer in 2006, Giannoulias received a $5,000 campaign contribution from a Florida casino owner who owed $4.8 million to a bank Giannoulias has a stake in, and the Casino owner's uncle had ties to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and was gunned down in what appears to be a mob hit.

Are you confident Giannoulias doesn't have ties to organized crime, and should he be raising money for your campaign?

I would prefer some questions like-

What will you do in your term as president to reverse the decline in the standing of the US throughout the world. (and assorted follow ups)

Describe your plans for Iraq... (and assorted follow ups)

The dollar is at or near an all time low. The subprime mortgage meltdown is seemingly dragging down the whole economy- What are you going to do about it? (and assorted follow ups)

Gas prices are a strain on Joe and jane Citizen as well as on many industries directly and indirectly. What are you going to do about it?

The blue signs are gone. What is your plan for signage along 30-A? (I jest)

:lol::clap:

Point is- who really cares about these "scandals"? Politicians in both sides have these things- favors they gave, money they took. Hate the game, not the player...

2 cents...

G

[6thGen]

I would prefer some questions like-

What will you do in your term as president to reverse the decline in the standing of the US throughout the world. (and assorted follow ups)

Describe your plans for Iraq... (and assorted follow ups)

The dollar is at or near an all time low. The subprime mortgage meltdown is seemingly dragging down the whole economy- What are you going to do about it? (and assorted follow ups)

Gas prices are a strain on Joe and jane Citizen as well as on many industries directly and indirectly. What are you going to do about it?

The blue signs are gone. What is your plan for signage along 30-A? (I jest)

:lol::clap:

Point is- who really cares about these "scandals"? Politicians in both sides have these things- favors they gave, money they took. Hate the game, not the player...

2 cents...

G

I completely agree, but this was about political mud and my prediction that he'll show to be mobbed up. Truth be told, the questions like the above are the ones that matter, the ones that separate him from other politicians, and the reason he won't receive my vote. Of course he's somewhat dirty, but so is every alternative.