News-Record.com

Here's what I make of it:

When anyone equates those who commit genocide with those who steal signs and paint over bumper stickers, that person gives up the right to be taken seriously. His email speaks volumes about his own attitudes, but says little of consequence about the people and organizations he decries.

Of course I'm opposed to people ripping up and stealing signs, but I do believe it happens to and from both sides.

I agree with Ian.

How did Kindley get in a position of responsibility and power?

Mr. Kindley needs to familiarize himself with Godwin's Law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

This whole sign destruction controversy is amusing, but also more than a little disturbing. I'm in charge of a dorm at UNCG and have had to put up signs reminding people it's not okay to rip down or vandalize the signs on other peoples' doors, walls or cars - because it's been that much of a problem.

Strangely, no Bush/Cheney supporters are reporting their signs torn down - but almost all the Kerry signs in the building have gone missing or been mutilated.

I have several photographs of several homemade signs from all over Greensboro that proclaim their Kerry sign was stolen, (one is on the front page at http://www.idlehandsmag.com but with the exception of one spray-bombed Bush sign on Sunset Drive, I've seen no such signs from Bush supporters.

Maybe it's just that the Bush supporters can afford to replace their signs with new signs instead of being forced to make homemade signs. After all, we know they got that big tax break that us poor folks didn't get.

Why do you think the Editor put his comments in here? Would it be because he has a Democratic audience?

Maybe you guys should stop posting to this failure they call an Editors Log/Blogg.

Unless, of course, you need a job and your an out of work Journalist. :-)

The Kindley e-mail is a spoof perpetrated by Democrats, right?

Assuming that it is more likely not, I think the N&R needs to reconsider its policy of excluding Libertarian candidates from the paper's official endorsement interview process on the grounds they are not "serious" candidates. Certainly, it appears that many Republicans would fail this test.

So let me get this straight. Democrats can trot out the "nazi" and "fascist" labels at every opportunity but Republicans can't? Wow, I didn't know Dems owned the franchise on that. I guess I should have though, since calling Bush a nazi has been the non-stop mantra of Dems this year, including Al Gore, MoveOn, Michael Moore, et al.

Okay, John...this is your October surprise, right?
Is this a real email from the Chairman of the Guilford County Republican Party? Who de facto is also an official of the North Carolina Republican Party? "Nazi tactics" and "Democrat Nazi thugs"?
Look, I am a Republican. I think it deplorable that campaign supporters, teen-agers and kids on a lark deface yard signs. And I think if someone breaks into a political headquarters they have broken the law.
But I thought the Nazi Party took control of Germany through official Party actions of widespread violence, intimidation and law-breaking on a nationwide scale that was so fundamental as to even cower the Church, all political opposition and even neighboring nations.
Have I missed something here?

What? Republicans and Democrats stealing from citizens, and trampling all over private property rights? Who would have ever thought of such a thing!

Reason number 393974 why I don't support either of those parties. Vote Libertarian.

Oh, and I have plenty of my "Rusty Sheridan for NC Senate" signs available if anyone wants one.

Having another party in politics is like having another denomination in religion.

The same thing, just a different twist on it. Stop pushing for this scaled down Republican logic called Libertarian.

It's not going to work. Just drop it and move on.

Yeah, heaven forbid we have more than 2 options for something as simple as religion. Or who we elect to write our laws. Those are pretty simple concepts. 2 options is plenty.

I have to go now. I've got to go make up my mind as to whether I'll go to Wendy's, Mcdonald's, Burger King, Subway, Quizno's, Pizza Hut, Herbie's Place, or Taco Bell for dinner now. Choosing where to buy our food is a waaaaaaay more important issue than what God I worship or what person I elect to public office, and we need lots of choices don't we! God Bless America.

If the republican county chair wants a real lesson in discrimination he should check what his party in collusion with the democrats do to everyone else.

They enact the toughest hurdles for third partys to get on the ballot in the nation. Then when one meets those challenges year after year they tax that partys members ot pay to use public facilities to host debates for thier candidates while telling everyone that the 'other candidate' is not worthy of being included because they can not possibly win.

I am never sure if the free advertising libertarians pay for disguised as a debate is more valuable to the democrat and republican candidates than all the advertising about how the 'other candidate' can't possibly win and should not be included.

After all when the media says it then it must be true right?

It is pretty clear this republican does not know what biased journalism really is.

Tom Bailey
Chair Libertarian Party of Guilford County

Why is there a campaign photo of Kay Hagan on the front page of the N&R internet site for a story on Dell coming to the Triad, when the story itself contains only one reference to Hagan? N&R bias injecting itself into the news division? You be the judge.

Why has the N&R endorsed all the Democrat incumbents in EVERY race except one (the AG commissioner race doesn't really count as an incumbency), and opposed all the Republican incumbents in EVERY race except Trudy Wade?

Why has the N&R endorsed all the liberals in the school board race?

Why has the N&R endorsed all the Democrats in every local state house race?

Why has the N&R endorsed both of the Democrats for Supreme Court (even though the office is now non-partisan)?

Why has the N&R endorsed the Democrat for governor?

Why has the N&R endorsed the Democrat in the state senate race for district 27 (the only contested race in the area)?

Why has the N&R endorsed the Democrat for Register of Deeds?

Why has the N&R endorsed all Democrats for re-election for council of state (except the aforementioned AG position which is really the only open race) and opposed all Republicans seeking re-election to council of state?

The N&R did endorse the Republican for the open Lt. Governor seat, but only after noting that the position is essentially a powerless one. They also endorsed two Republicans for county commissioner, offset by endorsing two Democrats for county commissioner.

There are eighteen races so far where the party affiliations of the candidates are known, and the N&R has made endorsements. They have endorsed only four Republicans. Undoubtedly, they will endorse Erskine Bowles and John Kerry. They will give Coble his token endorsement bringin the Democrat totals to 15 endorsements, the Republicans only 5. This happens every election cycle, yet the N&R insists is has no bias.

Samuel S. Spagnola
Stokesdale

I will start to consider the Libertarians when they put someone that is not a poor speaker or doesn't look like they just walked out of a Quaalude party in the 60's.

All the Restaurant chains you cited, have a good product and a worth while reason to consider patronizing them.

Untill then, I will work to better the party that I represent instead of figuring out ways to confuse the situation more.

To Mr. Spagnola, a couple responses: First, we put the photograph of Kay Hagan on the page because she was a major source in the story. But it wasn't out there for long. We change the photographs every few hours. We're particularly careful to give Kerry and Bush equal time.

As for all the endorsement questions, I must send you to Allen Johnson, our editorial page editor. Neither I nor anyone in the news department sits on the editorial board or participates in the endorsement process. We keep news coverage and editorials separate.

Matthew,

We have several well-spoken candidates. Michael Badnarik, Libertarian for President, is particularly good at logically presenting the case for liberty. The problem is you won't hear these messages becuase the media ignore us.

Indeed, the LP is a worthwhile product. Given all the attempts to knock us down, the fact that we stay afloat and registration gets larger every year is proof positive that more people are coming to our message.

But I commend you for trying to put a bandaid on that gaping wound within your party. I wish you success.

Rusty, didn't Badnarik spend a lot of time on his NPR interview talking about the terrible government imposition of...driver's licenses? He sounded like a flake. As Jeff Jarvis noted recently at his blog, smart sane libertarians (you may be one yourself) are constantly undercut by Libertarian Party candidates.
http://www.buzzmachine.com/archives/2004_10_20.html#008239

"The problem is you won't hear these messages becuase the media ignore us."

That's a bit simplistic, and assumes the public's got to be spoon fed their information. Libertarian info is out there and not hard to find. Maybe folks just don't find the platform and/or candidates all that compelling.

Badnarik, for example, might be a great guy, but what significant experience does he have that qualifies him as candidate for the presidency? I don't care about his skimpy political resume, but the rest of his experience is also pretty slim, unless you think that programming, sky diving, and teaching an 8-hour class on the Constitution are key skills the job requires.

Legitimacy comes from attracting credible candidates, and at the level of the presidential race the LP's not even in the game.

With todays fresh endorsements of 4 out of 5 Democrats, the total is now 19 Democrats endorsed by the N&R, and only 5 Republicans. John, I would address my comments to Allen, but don't you think that the obvious bias of your ed-board is newsworthy in and of itself? I have no animus against Allen or anyone else, but don't you think your publisher should make some changes there to get more balance?

My Friends call me Matt, Rusty. I did mention that I saw you speak at the A&T forum the other day and was impressed with your history lesson, but you may want to use my bandaid to cover the holes in your campaign platform.

No offense, but no one every won an election using information than obtained from their American History classes.

The editorial board is not supposed to be non-partisan. It is supposed to take positions on issues based on its core values, the same way that people like you do. So, expecting it to endorse an equal number of Republicans and Democrats -- and I know you haven't proposed that -- isn't reasonable.

The editorial pages are where the newspaper displays its opinions, and they are expected to be consistent and loud and clear.

"Principals in the White House"? The NEA would love that, though I doubt Marcus K. would.

Maybe more principals around Republican HQ would help Mr. Kindley learn how to spell "principles."

"Scipio"

Yeah. He He He. Your real funny. Maybe you should give up your day job and become a comedian! He He He.

G. Eye hope eye spelt evryting rite.

What qualifications does Badnarik have? Let's look at the required qualifications first (Article II Section I of the U.S. Constitution).

Natural born citizen? Check.
At least 35 years old? Check.
Lived in the U.S. for 14 years? Check.

See, this is America, and ANYONE should be able to assume the Presidency, not just priveledged rich white Yale frat brothers. The fact that Badnarik teaches a course on the Constitution is not a requirement, but certainly is a big plus. I don't hear John Kerry or George Bush touting their knowledge of the Constitution. And they have sworn to uphold it (they choose to trash it instead with laws like the Patriot Act).

Ian,
You said "That's a bit simplistic, and assumes the public's got to be spoon fed their information. Libertarian info is out there and not hard to find. Maybe folks just don't find the platform and/or candidates all that compelling."

Go ask 10 random people who the Libertarian candidate for President is or what the Libertarian Party believes in and then tell me the people don't vote Libertarian because they don't like the platform. That's not the case. They don't vote Libertarian because they haven't the first clue what one is. Some of it is voter apathy, some of it is media bias. But I'm working to change that.

Matt,
I didn't learn that in a history class. I learned it researching on my own. Like I said at A+T, freedom isn't something that's touted very often by educators or politicians. They don't want you free, becuase it means they have to give up some of their power over your life. I prefer to champion freedom at all costs, and that is why the Libertarian Party is the only logical choice for liberty-lovers.

I enumerated several reasons why one should vote Libertarian, and they aren't all based on a history lesson (although I fail to see why you think a knowledge of history is a negative for a political campaign).
If you'd like more specific reasons why I want you to vote for me, please click on the "issues" link at my website www.rustysheridan.com

Thanks

-Rusty

Rusty, Rusty, Rusty. You are a very passionate Lad, and I respect that. Keep up your fight for freedom. As for me. I choose to elect people that are qualified to run our country.

We don't live in the 1700's and we could lose more than just our freedom if a nincompoop gets in office.

John, a question I didn't see addressed here: Has the N&R considered a story on Kindley's letter? I wonder what other prominent county Republicans think of him flinging the term "Nazi" around, and whether this -- combined with his loss to Souther in the D4 primary -- raises questions among Republicans about his competence as party leader.

Apologies if it's been done and I missed it -- haven't been a regular reader this week.

Matt,

Thank you for the kind words.

I would like to ask you what are your required qualifications for office, and why do you think they are not in our Constitution? Should the Constitution be amended to require, for example, a college degree? Just curious.

-Rusty

Alex, we haven't written about it in the paper yet for a couple, arguable reasons. First, Kindley's persona is so over the top with dramatic hyperbole and personal and profession attacks, this seemed par for the course. We figure Republican leadership is aware of it and is OK with it.

Second, it's so close to the election. He was trying to fire up his base, and we didn't want to play into that.

Rusty, you just can't move beyond the civics textbook stuff, can you?

Nobody's talking about amending the Constitution, just real-world considerations like relevant experience and not being a conspiracy theorist or some other flavor of nut job. Many of us are small-l libertarians. The party is its own worst enemy.

Ed,

It has nothing to do with civics textbooks. Our Constitution is the law of the land, not civics textbooks or history course syllabi.

I just want to know, what do you consider required experience, and do you believe it should be mandated through the Constitution?

Thanks

Ah, but your wrong young man. The people are the lawmakers.

This Blogg is a great place to get quotes from N&R staff to use in other media as well Alex. Maybe, some TV stations should do a piece that highlights the obvious distain for the Republican Party in Guilfor County.

It may just prove Marcus's point!

"They don't vote Libertarian because they haven't the first clue what one is."

That, or they're repelled by the party and/or platform. You don't know which it is, nor do I.

"What qualifications does Badnarik have? Let's look at the required qualifications first (Article II Section I of the U.S. Constitution)...."

Sure, he's Constitutionally qualified. Do the voters think so? No. There's a real difference between Constitutional qualification and being qualified to effectively fulfill the duties of the office. The wonderful thing about the process is that there need not be a legal bar for the latter type of qualification -- the voters get to assess it. You're welcome to argue otherwise, but you're not going to get much traction with voters.

I think we would agree that some ideas from fringe candidates can resonate with the public and rise beyond the media story lines. Think of John Anderson, Ross Perot, and the early Howard Dean candidacy. The fact that the LP is relatively invisible suggests more about its ideas and candidates than about the possibility that big media holding it down.

Btw, in principle I like the idea of 3rd parties. But I'm with Ed -- the LP is its own worst enemy.

HEY SINCLAIR! LOOK AT THIS!

Is that the same reason you refuse to publish that Jim Rumley was endoursed by BJ Barnes? It might rally his base?

I think it is relevent to the District 59 race. But, I'm supposed to be bias.

Matt,

I don't understand what you're saying I'm wrong about. Yes, the people make the laws. But those laws are supposed to be consistent with the powers given to government as enumerated by the Constitution. Laws that the people make that are unconstitutional (i.e. Patriot Act), should be abolished.

Are you really disagreeing about that?

"That, or they're repelled by the party and/or platform. You don't know which it is, nor do I."

Actually I do. See, I've been out campaigning for months now. When I talk to people about my party and my positions, 9 out of 10 has never heard them before. But the interesting thing is, I've also had success winning support from 9 out of 10 of those same people once I explain the concept of individual rights and personaly responsibility. Turns out Americans like liberty a lot when they are exposed to it. Who'd have thunk.

Capitolizm is the problem you are fighting against. Your party doesnt have enough followers to support advertising. Therefore, you don't get exposure in the press. They don't care what you stand for, as long as the masses will tune in to see you.

Wow, Rusty, you win the support of 9 out of 10 people you speak with? Good luck in office.

Seriously, a problem with LP candidates is that they think nobody else is concerned with "the concept of individual rights and personal responsibility." Many of us who vote for major party candidates are familiar with those concepts, and try to live them. I'm sure 9 out of 10 people do warm to that discussion. But not many voters will warm to the absolutist positions of a Badnarik or Capo. Sorry.

Matt,

We do have financial support. We have commercials nationally on Fox News, CNN, Headline News. I have commercials broadcasting for my campaign on WSJS. We have ads in the papers and signs around town. Campaign finance reform has hurt, but it hasn't eliminated our presence.

But most people pay significanly more attention to debates and commentary from journalists. We are utterly ignored in those arenas. It's not capitalism that is the problem. It is the 4th branch of government ignoring us. But God bless the internet. The government hasn't infiltrated that arena yet.

You misunderstood me Rusty. It's not how much money you have. It's how much money your news can bring in advertising. It doesnt. Therefore the press could care less. Understand?

Ah, yes, I agree with that to an extent. The media, who say they are for presenting news unbiased and as a public service, really care mostly about selling newspapers or tv commercials.

But by allowing all 3 NC gubernatorial candidates into a debate, for example, does not detract from their advertising revenue. By interviewing all 3 candidates in any particular local race (like mine) does not detract from advertising revenue. If anything, it would increase viewership, as there are more than 1,000,000 voters in NC who are not registered Democrat or Republican. The media's actions are a disservice to those people.

We are making progress here. If you allow all three, you decrease the satisfaction of a majority of viewers. Satisfaction is key in marketing. It makes it so you can charge more for your product because it increases value to the consumer. See?

The 1,000,000 who are neither Democrat or Republican are from many facets of life. It doesnt matter to the press unless they all say WE ARE LIBERTARIAN! You get my point.

You get them to say that, and you may have a reason for the press to include you.

HEY JOHN! GIVE RUSTY SOME PRESS HERE! WHILE YOUR AT IT, PUT THAT BJ BARNES IS BACKING JIM RUMLEY FOR DISTRICT 59!

Liberty is popular in the US.
The LP isn't.
Failing to understand that distinction and presenting an extreme platform is what keeps the party on the fringes. Not the media.

Good luck with the door-to-door lecture tour. At your rate of success, some day I'll be able to say, "I remember the days when Pres. Sheridan debated me instead of real candidates."

Hey Ian? Who do you write for?

HEY JOHN! WHY DON'T YOU PRINT THAT BJ BARNES HAS BACKED JIM RUMLEY FOR STATE HOUSE DISTRICT 59?

IT WOULD BE MUCH BETTER THAN TAKING SHOTS AT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY!

Matt,

Please provide some explanation as to how providing all three options in the debates increases viewer dissatisfaction. Your statement is especially unsettling given the fact that in every poll I've ever seen that asks "who should be invited to the debates", a strong majority (68% or so) indicate EVERYONE ON THE BALLOT.

See, they're on the ballot for a reason. Because they have established the necessary modicum of public support to get there. If the people didn't want them there they wouldn't be on the ballot. They shouldn't be in the debate if they're not on the ballot. But if the people put them on the ballot, then they should be put in the debates. Simple as that.

Ian,

Again, I request that you go ask 10 random people if they know what the Libertarian Party believes in or who our candidate for President is. If you get a lot of informed answers that disagree with our platform, then I suspect you might be right. But it has been my experience, as I said before, that a VAST majority of people are unaware of the party's presence. But when I explain it to them they like it.

Oh, and I've debated my opponents quite a few times, thank you.

While I hate to break in, I must point out that we included Mr. Sheridan with the other two candidates in our profile of the N.C. Senate District 27 race. The newspaper did not endorse him, but he was mentioned in the editorial and an opinion column by Doug Clark.

For the record, I promise you that articles about candidates for local and state offices sell very few newspapers, but we present them as a public service and, well, that's what we do. If they were big sellers, you'd see TV paying attention to who is running and what they stand for.

Thank you Mr. Robinson. Yes, my candidacy was addressed by the N&R, and for that I am grateful. My complaint was in not being interviewed for endorsement consideration. Mr. Johnson informed me that the policy is to discriminate against Libertarians, but to interview 100% of the D's and R's.

I wasn't expecting the endorsement, but in a fair game all candidates should at least be given equal consideration. That would mean interviewing all the candidates. Mr. Johnson even admitted that my Republican opponent Bobby Coffer was very ill-informed on the issues. But he could not have made that assessment without interviewing him. Likewise, the editors could not see that I am very knowledgable about the issues without interviewing me.

It's the same in the U.S. Senate race endorsements that were published today. No mention of Libertarian Tom Bailey, despite the fact that he is the only candidate in that race opposed to the war in Iraq. And he's a Greensboro resident, for goodness' sake. Surely that at least would warrant a mention that he will be on the ballot.

But Mr. Johnson did indicate that the editorial discrimination policy may change in the future. I hope it does, as I intend to fight for liberty for many years to come.

Rusty Sheridan

Rusty, I'm glad you're fighting for liberty, though you seem to think it the exclusive province of the LP. That isn't the case, though you choose to believe otherwise.

As for your request for a random sampling of 10 and your assertion of what the results prove, those results -- whatever they are -- would prove nothing. If you disagree, take it up with a professor of statistics.

Finally, politics aren't fair, whatever your wishes to the contrary, and the proof of a party's viability is in the voting. If you fare well next week, then I'm obviously wrong. If you don't, then you can draw your own conclusions.

Over and out.... (at least regarding this discussion). And best of luck to you.

READ FROM BOTTOM TO TOP! Mr. Robinson thinks he can speak for everyone in Guilford County!

-----Original Message-----
From: JRobinson@News-Record.com [mailto:JRobinson@News-Record.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2004 6:08 PM
To: mcouncil1@triad.rr.com
Subject: RE: Blog feedback

I don't. It's hardly shocking that the Sheriff would back a Republican. But feel free to buy an ad.

-----Original Message-----
From: Matthew Council
To: John Robinson
Sent: 10/30/2004 2:23 PM
Subject: Blog feedback
Importance: High

HEY JOHN! Why don't you print it that BJ Barnes backed Jim Rumley for NC House District 59? It is important for the people of District 59 to know about. Don't you agree?

Matt Council

Matt,

The proof would be in the voting, ceteris paribus. But all other things are NOT equal (that is, Libertarians are not afforded equal consideration so vote support measured by vote totals are skewed). We'll agree to disagree I suppose. Thanks for posting. Best of luck to you.

Rusty Sheridan

oops, that last comment was for Ian, not Matt. My bad.

Can't let Rusty do all the work for us...

"smart sane libertarians (you may be one yourself) are constantly undercut by Libertarian Party candidates."

Ed, and this here on a thread that started with a senseless letter from the party of Billy Yow is part of your argument (and the N&R's) against giving a little respect to the Libertarian Party? (I could site similar instances regarding candidates of the Democratic Party as well.)

Continuing on:

"Badnarik, for example...his experience is also pretty slim, unless you think that programming, sky diving, and teaching an 8-hour class on the Constitution are key skills the job requires."

Rather than invoke the argument of the importance of surrounding yourself with good people. I'll take it up where you left it.

Hmm: Software programming = brains and analytical skills, sky diving = confidence/daring and a Constitutional scholar = clearly understands actually the legally binding document we have agreed to be governed by.

Using the Cone rhetoric technique, let's cherry pick now from the bio promoted for John Kerry: Getting shot in the butt in Vietnam over 30 years ago, windsurfing, and spending a few decades in the US Senate without having his name appear on any significant piece of legislation. Oh, and he has a running mate too who is "a heartbeat away from the presidency." Let see a mal-practice lawyer. Can't find that as a critical requirement of the job, but if you dust of your Constitution you will find this: "Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation, 'I will faithfully execute the office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.'"

(Is there really any point in discussing the pre- qualifications of the other approved party guy?)

I think what I detect in your argument is that a "commoner" shouldn't be allowed to hold the office of the Presidency, a position you deem more safely reserved for a member of the political aristocracy as vetted by the money raising process. (Go check Mark Binker's article on fund raising and tell me what you note as the common theme among the notable donors.)

Finally, you've seen the video tape. If we were talking about real issues and Badnarik was on stage with Kerry and Bush, most of the American public could quickly decide, who they thought was more qualified... Just like Mr. Card and the majority of the Irving Park School audience decided when they saw a real candidate (a Libertarian) versus what they have been told to accept as their only options for too long now.

---- I think Mr. Robinson must be starting to wonder if it is time to start a new thread or send us all home to our own blogs.

KEEP UP THE FIGHT RUSTY! I respect that. I have to fight to get press for local candidates all the time.

"---- I think Mr. Robinson must be starting to wonder if it is time to start a new thread or send us all home to our own blogs."

I think Mr. Robinson needs to get his Editorial Board under control and stop farting around in this BLOG!

Ugh! These threads really deteriorate exponentially, huh? John, maybe the GNR can develop a board for new threads under your postings--those that veer more than 45 degrees off point. That way those of us who wantto follow the discussions that relate to your original posting can do so without having to wade and wallow through the muck and more.
Just a thought....I hope I am not out of line. I don't want to seem impolitie, unreasonable, inhospitable. But some folks who are interested, just don't have the time to get so bogged down off point.

This is not off point at all.

READ FROM BOTTOM TO TOP! Mr. Robinson thinks he can speak for everyone in Guilford County!

-----Original Message-----
From: JRobinson@News-Record.com [mailto:JRobinson@News-Record.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2004 6:08 PM
To: mcouncil1@triad.rr.com
Subject: RE: Blog feedback

I don't. It's hardly shocking that the Sheriff would back a Republican. But feel free to buy an ad.

-----Original Message-----
From: Matthew Council
To: John Robinson
Sent: 10/30/2004 2:23 PM
Subject: Blog feedback
Importance: High

HEY JOHN! Why don't you print it that BJ Barnes backed Jim Rumley for NC House District 59? It is important for the people of District 59 to know about. Don't you agree?

Matt Council

I WANT AN APOLOGY FROM YOU FOR ALLOWING BIAS AND FOR POSTING THE LETTER FROM MARCUS KINDLEY!

IT WAS IN VERY POOR TASTE!

Jim, spare me the commoner/aristocrat rhetoric. Badnarik is a flake for spending time complaining about driver's licenses being unconstitutional. Don't shoot the messenger, get a better candidate -- not based on a resume, but on the ability to focus on something remotely relevant to the job at hand.

And speaking of cherry-picking, you neglect to mention that in the same Card article you cite, he says you are unserious about winning, as evidenced by your LP affiliataion and JBS job.

REMOVE THIS LETTER FROM YOUR BLOGG. IT ONLY SERVES AS EVIDENCE OF YOUR BIAS AND DISTAIN FOR REPUBLICANS!

You know what. On second thought. Leave this in here. I have some sindicated morning shows that want to talk about this.

Matt,

If you don't think John would publish at his blog a similarly crackpot letter broadcast via email by a prominent Democrat, then your understanding of journalism is as weak as your spelling.

Too bad this is an online forum where nobody except anal retentives care about spelling.

But thats ok. You can poke fun. It's a free country. At least untill you get done swaying the public with your editorial section full of Kerry suporters. Bias. I'd say you guys are beyond bias.

How much does the DNC pay you anyway?

Ahhhh. I see. You guys are trying to do your own version of voter intimidation. huh?

Your Ed Cone! You work for the News and Record.

Nice piece today. What was the title? Oh. Yeah. "Why I am Voting for Kerry"

I do not work for the N&R. Never have. I do contribute a weekly column, for which they pay me, and they do run it in a nice prominent place on their opinion page. But they don't tell me what to write, and I wouldn't listen to them if they did. And John Robinson doesn't run that page, anyway.

You did not address the point I made. Not the one about your spelling, the one about John posting a similar letter from a Democrat should one appear in his mailbox. Do you honestly think he would not do so?

No surprise the N & R has endorsed Kerry but get this ,front and center on B1( Sunday ) was a "news story " about a hate Bush rally of 150 or so ( reporter's estimate ? ) leftist clowns complete with a 6" x 7" color photo . On the inside was another photo of this poor excuse for a theatre of the absurd. My what interest the News & Record has taken in this organization of socialists ( Get Loud ) ,excuse me progressives. Earlier this week they were the subject of a sympathetic article in GOTRIAD. No the News & Record is not a liberal paper. Neither is the New York Times.

Ed Cone readers beware: master spin artist at work.

Cone: "Rusty, didn't Badnarik spend a lot of time on his NPR interview talking about the terrible government imposition of...driver's licenses? He sounded like a flake."

Cone again: "Badnarik is a flake for spending time complaining about driver's licenses being unconstitutional"

No, Ed. Actually Badnarik did none of this on his NPR "interview" as you falsely claim. Unless you have access to a different "interview" than any of the ones posted on-line by NPR.

As it is only one of two posts in the NPR archives covering a candidate that is on the ballot in 48 states and for which 98.3% of the American electorate has the option to vote for, I assume this is the "interview" you are talking about.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4118051

The story actually starts as a discussion on Ralph Nader, whose name less than half the American electorate will see on their ballot. Then on a "world class" network that goes out of its way to make sure even listeners sending in letters get their names pronounced properly, the seasoned professional Renee Montagne gives the lead in to the "interview" by pronouncing Mr. Badnarik's name significantly wrong.

The field reporter Greg Allen does pronounce Badnarik's name correctly in the first occurrence then goes on to mispronounce it through the rest of his story. The only mention of a driver's license is in a brief interview with a person described as a graduate student supporting Badnarik. Listening to the whole story it is not readily apparent that any of Badnarik's words are actually spoken in a interview format to Mr. Allen directly. As for getting arrested that night, NPR deceptively gives the impression that it must have had something to do with a driver's license as opposed to an act of civil disobedience in crossing a police line that barred his access to a public debate for Presidential candidates...one which being publicly subsidized should not have been allowed to exclude him.

Either you willfully have misrepresented Mr. Badnarik here, or you were going from a distorted memory of who actually said what in a distorted NPR story. Mr. Badnarik does have a contrarian position on driver's licenses but, as that is not a federal or constitutional issue it is absolutely not a critical part of his Presidential campaign.

If you are really transfixed here on where Badnarik stands on the principle of driver's licenses though, I take it you rank this as a more important issue than where your endorsement, Mr. Kerry stands on acts of "civil disobedience" such as fraternizing with the enemy during wartime.

Damn fact checkers. (Of course I recognize wily guy that you are you did not make a demonstrative statement to Rusty but only ASKED, "didn't he..." So, I guess you have some deniability there.)

Sidebar: When I run for re-election I may try to pad the margin next time by dropping my LP and Birch affiliations then get really serious by selling T-shirts depicting urination on the NAACP logo so I can run uncontested in my district. As an added plus I'll be able to donate the sales proceeds to other members of my party for their own campaign efforts.

Hey Ed! I know he wouldnt because he has recieved countless letters from Demoquaks and hasnt represented them in hear.

did eye spl it rite?

HEY ROBINSON! Maybe you should tell Ed to spend as much time studying Politics as he does critiquing my English.

It's funny that the letter was posted the day after we called a press conference to talk about the N&R bias.

It's funny that John Robinson was arguing with Marcus kindley on the phone the day before.

It's funny that people like John Robinson can use their position to push personal agendas.

And Ed. Who signs for your check from the N&R?

Matt, I can't say I've ever looked at the signature on those checks, but I would assume it's the publisher, not the editor, since that's the normal division of labor at a newspaper. I'll check this week when they back the Brinks truck up to my mailbox.

Again, JR does not run the page on which I write. That would be Allen Johnson, and he also does not tell me what to write, or per your suggestion, study.

Good. Than mind your own business. This is between me and Allen and John!

I thank you for your respect.

Jim, there is a different between spin and error. I erred in saying it was the candidate who talked about the unconstitutionality of driver's licenses. You are right, it was a supporter who noted that your man has been arrested repeatedly because he refuses to get a license. And it was the reporter who then notes that he had just gotten arrested again.

I'll stand by the flake part.

I didn't hear the NPR interview. So the reporter didn't say why Badnarik had been arrested (for attempting to enter a Presidential debate), and instead insinuated that he was arrested for not having a driver's license?

If so, then now I know why I don't listen to NPR.

Matt, when you post things in a public forum such as a BLOG on the Internet, you open yourself up to public criticism and make everyone who reads or posts on the BLOG a part of whatever you are speaking of. Word of advice: If you want something to be private, or between you and one to two other people, don't post them in a public forum such as the N&R BLOG

Rusty. You have to research everything for yourself and come up with your own conclusions.

If you plan to stay in politics, and I'm sure you do, then you can help me get that message out to all of Generation Y.

That would be one thing we agree on.

Thanks for our Support Big Whirlie.

I guess the same is true when you send out a mass mailer.

Who are you ? Please stop representing our Party.

I'm not representing your party. I'm a democrat. Just tired of bias media.

Matt, yes, I do research things on my own, and that's why I'm a Libertarian and not one of the media-approved candidates.

You're right about biased media. Keep fighting the good fight!

-Rusty

Matt,

I have been following this thread and am having a hard time understanding where you stand. You call youself a democrat but tout the libertarian party all just weeks after going to a Republican meetup? What is your true stance. If you can't find a party to align with, you can at least look at the tough issues such as the war in Iraq, Abortion, Gay Marriage/Civil Unions? You seem to be so focused on party that you forget about what each stands for? I think maybe you need to do some research and let us know where you stand?

Im not trying to be critical, I just agonized over this last election and hope that Im not the only one that cares what these people stand for.

An interesting read! I'll consider what you said over my christmas holidays. I want Grand good Theft Auto: San Andreas for Christmas!