[Rhodes22-list] POLITICAL: conservative talk show host endorses Obama

Herb Parsons hparsons at parsonsys.com
Sun Oct 19 10:30:57 EDT 2008 

What do you mean I made your point for you? You haven't said what your 
point was. I keep asking, you keep not saying.

I don't think you know what your point is, but I'll help you out.

When a "conservative" agrees with you, it's noteworthy. When one 
doesn't, it's not. I'm pretty sure that's your point.

Pete, there are lots of conservatives that believe the Republican party 
has veered from where it should be. McCain is evidence of that. Palin is 
evidence (for many of us) that there is still hope.

However, I've got a news flash for you, probably something you haven't 
thought about (thought about.... now THERE'S a concept for you)....

The Democratic party is the largest party in the US. Larger than the 
Republican party. It is larger in percentage by double digits according 
to most estimates than the Republicans. Yet you find it newsworthy that 
columnists and others are heading that way.

Seems to me it would be EXPECTED that Obama carried the election. All he 
would have to do is carry his party, and the independents that lean 
towards his party.

But, at best (for him) it's a struggle to get them.

Maybe the real story is that the Democratic party has "lost its way". 
Truth be told, their current choice has had to backtrack and flipflop on 
MANY issues to win their votes. It will be interesting to see if he flop 
flips back after he's won (if he does).

Did you know he's beginning to slip again in the polls? Probably not 
noteworthy though...


petelargo wrote:
> thanks herb. thats what I thought. you made my point for me. I have
> continuously been posting that the repub party has lost it's bearings. there
> is a phenomena occurring. pay attention.
>
>
> hparsons wrote:
>   
>> What is the point Pete?
>>
>> I don't base my choice on the choice of others. I answered your 
>> question, you wont' answer mine. Hell, you can't even get your facts 
>> correct.
>>
>>
>> petelargo wrote:
>>     
>>> ok herb. i'll lower the bar all the way down. find me couple of notable
>>> and
>>> known liberals voting for mccain. post the links of their endorsements.  
>>>
>>>
>>> hparsons wrote:
>>>   
>>>       
>>>> Let's look at your statement a bit. I say "your statement" because you 
>>>> didn't read their article closely enough, and missed a few things.
>>>>
>>>> While it's true that the paper has been in existence for over 150 years, 
>>>> their first endorsement for a Republican presidential nominee was in 
>>>> 1860 for Abraham Lincoln. That was 148 years ago, not "over 150 years".
>>>>
>>>> While it's also true that they've never endorsed a Democrat for 
>>>> President, it's NOT true that they've "consecutively and continuously" 
>>>> endorsed Republicans.
>>>>
>>>> First of all, they've endorsed MANY Democratic candidates for other 
>>>> offices, including Barak Obama for senator.
>>>>
>>>> Even in the presidential elections, they have not "consecutively and 
>>>> continuously" endorsed Republicans.
>>>>
>>>> First of all, they endorsed Horace Greeley in 1872, who was a member of 
>>>> the "Liberal Republican Party". That was NOT the Republican party, in 
>>>> fact he ran against Republican Ulysses S Grant. He was nominated by the 
>>>> new party, and subsequently endorsed by the Democratic party. That would 
>>>> be pretty close to the paper endorsing a Democrat, but it's definitely 
>>>> NOT the paper endorsing the Republican candidate, who was Grant.
>>>>
>>>> Greeley lost.
>>>>
>>>> In 1912, the paper endorsed Theodore Roosevelt who ran against 
>>>> Republican William Taft and Democrat Woodrow Wilson.
>>>>
>>>> Roosevelt lost.
>>>>
>>>> Your facts are wrong. You probably ought to curb your excitement a bit, 
>>>> ignore the tingle up your leg, and get a little more informed.
>>>>
>>>> But, there are other underlying facts as well...
>>>>
>>>> Last year the paper was part of a leveraged buyout, and is now under new 
>>>> ownership. The new owner contributes to both parties heavily (and more 
>>>> to Republicans than Democrats), but he is a businessman, and the 
>>>> newspaper is a business that his having problems. Obama is a widely 
>>>> popular candidate in Chicago, and will take his state without a doubt. I 
>>>> suspect that the paper's motive might have a little to do with trying to 
>>>> sell papers, but that's just a guess.
>>>>
>>>> To answer your question, I don't know of a paper that fits your 
>>>> description, so don't bother waiting. However, I'm wondering how long 
>>>> you're going to keep ME waiting for the question I've continued to ask.
>>>>
>>>> What's your point?
>>>>
>>>> petelargo wrote:
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>>>> Here you go 'Last-Word-Herb'. The Chicago Tribune has just endorsed
>>>>> obama
>>>>> after over 150 years of consecutively and continuously endorsing
>>>>> republicans. Find a newspaper that has endorsed a democratic nominee
>>>>> for
>>>>> president for 150 years in a row and is now endorsing McCain. Try not
>>>>> to
>>>>> keep me waiting as long as katie couric has been waiting for sister
>>>>> sarah
>>>>> to
>>>>> get back to her on all those examples of mccains regulatory history. 
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-tribune-endorsementoct18,0,3250801.story
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> hparsons wrote:
>>>>>   
>>>>>       
>>>>>           
>>>>>> Pete,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I really don't understand your point on the constant harping on 
>>>>>> "conservatives" that are voting for a far left wing liberal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is your point that some folks are crossing over? If so, trust me, we
>>>>>> all 
>>>>>> some are, both directions. LOTS of libs voting for McCain as well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is your point that you suddenly respect the opinion of conservatives?
>>>>>> If 
>>>>>> so, you probably need to know, there are more conservatives that are 
>>>>>> voting for McCain than Obama. I'll be happy to give you a list of some 
>>>>>> of the better known names, if you're that easily swayed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I suspect the REAL reason though, is that the only opinions that
>>>>>> matter 
>>>>>> are those that match yours, and then you suddenly believe that makes
>>>>>> it 
>>>>>> "noteworthy". Trust me, it's not.
>>>>>> ;)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> petelargo wrote:
>>>>>>     
>>>>>>         
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> On his talk show on WPHT today, conservative Philadelphian Michael
>>>>>>> Smerconish
>>>>>>> endorsed Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. Smerconish did so by reading a
>>>>>>> couple
>>>>>>> paragraphs from his pending op-ed in the Philadelphia Inquirer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "I've decided," he said. "My conclusion comes after reading the
>>>>>>> candidates'
>>>>>>> memoirs and campaign platforms, attending both party conventions,
>>>>>>> interviewing both men multiple times, and watching all primary and
>>>>>>> general
>>>>>>>           
>>>>>>> election debates.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "John McCain is an honorable man who has served his country well. But
>>>>>>> he
>>>>>>> will not get my vote. For the first time since registering as a
>>>>>>> Republican
>>>>>>> 28 years ago, I'm voting for a Democrat for president.
>>>>>>>   
>>>>>>>       
>>>>>>>           
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
>>>>>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     
>>>>>>         
>>>>>>             
>>>>>   
>>>>>       
>>>>>           
>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
>>>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>>   
>>>       
>> __________________________________________________
>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>> __________________________________________________
>>
>>
>>     
>
>

More information about the Rhodes22-list mailing list