Print this story |
E-mail story |
This story has 19 comments | Add your own |
iPod friendly | Bookmark this
What is this?
McCain has the experience
Published Saturday, November 1, 2008
The decision for who was going to be our selection in the 2008 presidential election has been a tough. While our editorial staff was split on the who we are supporting, we came to the conclusion that John McCain is best selection for our country at this time.
Neither McCain nor Barack Obama is a strong candidate in our opinion. Both have good qualities, but they also have their shortcomings. However, the bottom line is the experience in getting things done in Washington.
McCain has shown that he has the experience necessary to get legislation passed in Congress. Obama hasn’t. In the years he has been in office, Obama hasn’t been able to get any legislation passed into law. If you can’t get any bills pushed through Congress to become law, then you can’t produce any change.
This is the reason why we believe McCain is the best man to lead our country for the next four years.
On statewide amendment one:
We don’t believe our Legislature should take up to $245 million out of the oil and gas trust fund to put in the rainy day fund for education. If we dip into our nest egg now, what’s stopping us from doing it later? This would set a bad precedent for our state. We say no.
On the special election:
The bottom line is this amendment could save our county money from eliminating one position. We say yes.
On local amendment one:
This act is not a new tax. It only redistributes the current taxes that you are paying in a much fairer way to local fire departments. Some smaller fire departments are counting on the passage of this amendment just to survive, and we fully support this amendment.
Speak Up
The Clanton Advertiser encourages you
to share your opinion on this or any other
topic. Submit your letter to the editor
to The Advertiser by:
•Fax: (205) 755-5857
•Mail: P.O. Box 1379
Clanton, AL, 35046
•In person: 1109 7th Street North, Clanton.
•Or click here
All letters must be signed by the author and
indicate a telephone number and address
for verification purposes. The length of the letter
must be no longer than 300 words. We reserve
the right to edit submitted information
for grammar and known factual mistakes.
For more information call 755-5747.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHARE THIS STORY?
Comments
Posted by AllSeeingEye (anonymous) on November 2, 2008 at 1:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The Advertiser has the right to endorse John McCain but they owe their readers to at least get the facts right!
Their primary reasoning for why Barack Obama does not get their endorsement contains the following factual inaccuracy: "In the years he has been in office, Obama hasn’t been able to get any legislation passed into law."
Barack Obama has indeed been able to get legislation passed in Congress since he became a US Senator. In fact, 16 bills sponsored or co-sponsored by Obama have became law.
Here is a list of some of the legislation that is now a US law thanks to Obama:
The Lugar-Obama Non-Proliferation Act
http://obama.senate.gov/press/070111-lug...
S.2590 Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd...
S.2125 The Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd...
S.2488 OPEN Government Act of 2007
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-s24...
S. 2803 Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act of 2006
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd...
S. 707 PREEMIE Act
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd...
S. 906: Mercury Market Minimization Act of 2007
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd...
S.2617 Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2008
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-s26...
S.2135 Child Soldiers Accountability Act of 2008
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-s21...
S.1760 Healthy Start Reauthorization Act of 2007
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-s17...
S.1492 Protecting Children in the 21st Century Act
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-s14...
S.1276 Methamphetamine Production Prevention Act of 2008
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-s12...
S.793 Traumatic Brain Injury Act of 2008
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-s79...
S.431 KIDS Act of 2008
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-s43...
I don't know how the Advertiser got this easy-to-confirm fact wrong but anyone can learn the truth about Obama's record of passing bills into law by doing a little research online.
The Clanton Advertiser is being irresponsible by publishing this falsehood about Obama and I demand that they print a retraction before election day!
Posted by TheDude (Michael Wells) on November 2, 2008 at 6:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I believe the staff of the Clanton Advertiser has collectively made a good sound decision to support John McCain for president. Based on facts, experience, and intuition there is no other logical choice for those who see out of both eyes.
Posted by Tommy (anonymous) on November 2, 2008 at 8:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
ASE- your first example is an example of Obama riding the coat tail of a Republican, the act which initally was Nunn-Lugar non proliferation act of 1991 became the Lugar-Obama act. I give you credit that his name is on that act but it was simply a case of a Republican (Lugar) taking the kid under his wing. So when you start making FACTS, put in all the little quirks. Good to know though that A Republican has some influence over the kid.
Posted by Tommy (anonymous) on November 2, 2008 at 9:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Well I researched the federal funding accountability and transparency act of 2006 and again Tom Coburn introduced the bill and Obama jumped on board but so did McCain. I'm not going to keep researching this because 2 strikes and you are out. Quit trying to confuse people. Now post a Bill that OBAMA introduced and Passed.
Posted by Tommy (anonymous) on November 2, 2008 at 9:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ok I lied, I went through all 14 and there are 2 bills that were sponsored by Obama. But Come on ASE there were as many as 42 and few as 7 co sponsors on each bill. The man has been in the senates since Jan. 2005 and has 2 bills that he sponsored (not co sponsored). I will agree the Advertiser should not have written that he had none but 0 is closer to 2 than 14.
Posted by TheDude (Michael Wells) on November 2, 2008 at 10:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey Tommy ... don't stress yourself to death trying to substantiate ASE'S "copy & pasties". It really doesn't matter. The Clanton Advertiser presented their stance on the candidate's and that's where it stands. You don't see any McCain supporter's blowing up on-line because Colin Powell, Madonna, Hollywood, and the Clinton's endorsed Obamer.
Posted by AllSeeingEye (anonymous) on November 2, 2008 at 12:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hello? This article clearly states that "Obama hasn’t been able to get ANY legislation passed into law" - THAT IS A LIE!
How do you get legislation through congress as a Senator? BY SPONSORING OR CO-SPONSORING BILLS!
I always hear from the 'right' how Obama has never 'crossed the aisle' to work with Republicans, but as soon as you are confronted with the facts you deny it as "riding coat tails." GIVE ME A BREAK! You should at least give him credit for working with Lugar and Coburn, but you just can't bring yourself to give Obama any credit for anything at all. Why?
Also, Tommy you are incorrect - Obama has sponsored more than 2 bills, a lot more. And, two have become law - again disproving the Advertiser's claim.
To be clear, I have absolutely no problem with The Advertiser endorsing McCain but their primary reason for not endorsing Obama as stated above in plain English IS WRONG!
However, it's interesting that the Advertiser completely ignores the question of judgment. No wonder when John McCain has been wrong on Iraq, wrong on Afghanistan, wrong on the economy, wrong on health care, wrong on his VP pick... I could go on.
You know, it really shows how distorted the view is of people like Tommy and TheDude when they'll completely ignore this obvious fact the Advertiser got wrong about Obama just because it makes them feel better that they've endorsed McCain.
Posted by KikiSquigglebottom (anonymous) on November 2, 2008 at 12:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ASE is right - this is a newspaper - they should get their facts straight. TheDude - Madonna & Hollywood aren't reporters of facts so that is an irrelevant argument. And the Clintons are Democrats - who did you expect them to endorse? The only unexpected endorsement was that of Colin Powell and it did cause an outcry but it has become blunted because more Repblicans have come out in support of Obama - (mainly in response to Palin as VP and not anything about McCain). And whether it's 2 or 16 or 100, it's still not 0 as was reported. If that's their only reason to endorse McCain, then it's based on erroneous information. And the fact that some of the bills he worked on were with Republicans just supports his claim that he works across the aisle.
And Tommy, I don't know what game you're referring to but it's usually 3 strikes and you're out. :P
TheDude - ASE took the time to go to the sites and present a counter to misinformation. At least he did the research without assuming the paper was completely right or wrong.
What if The Advertiser had supported Obama and cited the same reason for not supporting McCain? While I don't think they're blindly supporting either candidate because they did say the staff was split and that they don't think either candidate is a strong candidate, they should report the records factually because over 14,000 households will get this misinformation delivered to their homes, assuming their Opinion piece is going out in print.
Vote for who you feel would do a better job based on facts and please stop attacking each other.
Posted by sasuch13 (anonymous) on November 2, 2008 at 2:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Clearly our educational system has failed the authors, who are apparently unable to recognize the multiple grammatical problems in the lead paragraph. It's not terribly surprising that the editors can't produce an opinion based on the facts if their reading comprehension is as poor as their writing.
There are legitimate reasons for voters to choose McCain over Obama. This endorsement does not begin to make an intelligent case.
Posted by TheDude (Michael Wells) on November 2, 2008 at 3:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Whoa ... ya'll need to go cry on somebody else's shoulder. When some say McCain is the man, you lefty's go ballistic. As Jack Nicholson said in "A Few Good Men", "You can't handle the truth!"
Squigglebottom, I'm not talking about reporters or Democrats, I am talking about "endorsements" ... period.
ASE, retract this ... when McCain was fighting for our freedom, Obama was in diapers. Experience trumps a silver-tongued wolf in sheep's clothing.
Posted by KikiSquigglebottom (anonymous) on November 2, 2008 at 4:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
TheDude - I think it's you that can't handle the truth. Again, I wasn't attacking anyone nor making any endorsements, just stating that the Advertiser needs to get it's facts straight before this is printed and sent to peoples homes. I have never assassinated either candidates character and wish others would cease to do so and just focus on the facts. And that's all I have to say about this.
Posted by AllSeeingEye (anonymous) on November 2, 2008 at 5:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
TheDude is just trying to stir things up because he is a wingnut troll. I've seen his comments criticizing the Advertiser staff because of a spelling error, but when they plainly get a fundamental fact wrong about Obama, it's perfectly okay to him. He is a hypocrite. Distract and attack, it's all he knows - just like McCain.
Posted by TheDude (Michael Wells) on November 2, 2008 at 7:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well, alrighty then! It's been a blast folks, battling back and forth on all the issues, especially the political ones. I apologize for any remarks I have made that disrespected anyone and/or their beliefs. I will leave our nation's future in Gods hands. Que Sara Sara ...
Posted by UAEng (anonymous) on November 2, 2008 at 9:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I actually agree with ASE on this one. Obama has sponsored many bills, but when they retract their statement they could point out that Obama has never authored or co-authored a bill.
Posted by AllSeeingEye (anonymous) on November 2, 2008 at 10:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thank you UAEng, but you are incorrect. Obama has authored many bills and usually the sponsor has had some part in writing the legislation even though some bills may be drafted by a staff member, an interest group, or others.
When describing bills by Obama, many people use the terms authored or written instead of sponsor.
Here is a list of bills sponsored by Obama.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?&...))
Posted by AllSeeingEye (anonymous) on November 3, 2008 at 1:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Sorry, my link didn't work.
Go to:
http://thomas.loc.gov/
Browse Bills by Sponsor > Select a Senator > Obama, Barack [D-IL]
Posted by AllSeeingEye (anonymous) on November 4, 2008 at 10:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Well, here it is election day and not a single word on this website from anyone at the Advertiser about their obvious mistake. I had to call their office to find out what they plan to do, and Brent Maze told me there is no plan to print a retraction or correction at this time. His only explanation was that it might have been poorly worded. You bet it's poorly worded when the ONLY reason they give for endorsing McCain is based on a falsehood about Obama.
In my opinion the Clanton Advertiser has just lost any journalistic integrity they might have had by ignoring this issue. If they had printed a similar mistake about McCain while endorsing Obama, they'd have people in a frenzy. Just because this is Alabama and your paper is called the "Advertiser" doesn't give you the right to be this lazy, sloppy, and irresponsible. Especially when it comes to something as important as a national election for president. I am sick that I actually worked for this organization delivering papers for a full year, six-nights-a-week without ever missing one day of work. This so-called newspaper is a joke, and from now on people should take every "fact" they read in it with a huge grain of salt.
Posted by CLOWER (anonymous) on November 4, 2008 at 1:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
i disagree on your special election choice. combining those offices could cost the county money instead of saving. the bottom line is we know exactly what they cost now! if we combine them, only then will we find out what it will actually cost. i believe mr. little will tell you it is to much for one man to handle . also , it seems you may be punishing those fire departments who built annex stations, if you vote yes.
Posted by AllSeeingEye (anonymous) on November 7, 2008 at 11:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This will be my last comment on this website. I will no longer contribute to the Advertiser in any way due to their lack of a response or correction of any kind when they were caught getting a basic fact wrong about Obama as their only reason for endorsing McCain. Maybe they'll still print my letter to the editor, but I really don't care. Their failure to correct their mistake in their election-day issue shows they would rather mislead their readers than set the record straight. They have zero journalistic integrity and I will have nothing to do with them, including canceling my plans to advertise in their "newspaper" for my small business. My posts always stir up the wingnuts, so I refuse to continue to contribute to the Advertiser's online ad revenues. Now, they are censoring my comments by removing them when I wrote absolutely nothing controversial. Today I'm done.
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)