"This dog won't hunt."

Judge Bullock said that in his 2003 decision on education that ultimately led to the Supreme Court review that everyone is mangling.

"Money doesn't matter? That dog won't hunt in Dodge City!" Bullock wrote. (http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2003/dec...)

Funny, 4125, but I have never heard one of your apparent political persuasion refer to the honorable Judge Bullock as a "great leader."

Well I would say his bias is in the fact that he does not mention that Democrats do the same thing ....using churches, unions, trial lawyers and minority groups. Everyone running for office tries to raise money and ask for help from those that traditionally support them.

Phill Kline preaches in churches about his life and faith, NOT about his job.

RE-ELECT PHILL KLINE!!!!

The real problem in this issue that folks who believe in NOTHING are poop-scared of folks who do adhere to a core value system.

Thanks.

Marion.

Bit of a generalization...many people believe in OTHER ways of meeting today's societal challenges without having to resort to bullying, domineering, or name-calling behaviors.

As to a 'core value system', many citizens of Germany, Italy and Japan had 'core values' in the 1930's and 1940's, that didn't make them the type of values that brought the world forward in any way. Blind adherence to doctrines with little (if any) tolerance of others isn't consistent with the values of the Founding Fathers of the Republic.

i got to agree with miss penny. i usually skip his articles because it raises my blood pressure everytime i see the bias, which is always. i thought reporters were supposed to be unbiased and i thought they weren't supposed to editorialize articles.

perhaps he should apply for a job with Time magazine. they started editorializing with a liberal slant in every article they wrote about 15+ years ago. they still do it to this day. at the time Time magazine changed, they admitted what they were going to do, except nowadays they won't admit they editorialize.

I agree with Baille.

All politicians reach out and connect with potential campaign donors. People know people; people do business with people.

Kline's memo, however, reveals an exceedingly cynical view of what Kline believes he's doing - going 'to preach' at churches for the purpose of raising money for his campaign (and in furtherance of his ambition). All contact with congregants as people rather than contributors is limited. Likewise, General Kline is invited in by the churches to further their own involvement in politics rather than to facilitate civic virtue or even - God forbid - just have Kline in as a lay preacher. Slimfast indeed!

There's no bias in pointing this out. The author would rather the press ignore this memo. But, rather than attack the churches for soiling themselves with this worldly obsession (I'm more forgiving to Kline - why complain about a wolf's dinner choices?), the author finds offense is the best defense and attacks - others must be doing wrong so that justifies people of faith doing the same! What are you going to say at the pearly gates? That good intentions justify your silence while the Body of Christ was defiled by the moneychangers?

Kline is a demagogue - "one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots."

Trial lawyers and unions? There is a play right out of the neocon game book.

No politicians have spoken at any of the professional organizations to which I belong, and the only AG candidate who has written me begginig for money is Kline. Phill, nice guy that he is, has invited me to several dinners for $250 a plate with the encouragment to give $4000 if married.

But c'mon. This isn't about trial lawyers or unions. This is about Kline's continuing struggle with ethics. Kline isn't going to these churches to make friends. He made that clear in the memo. No time for sit-down social lunches, people. Slimfast and hit them hard. He is going there because he gets money.

Phill preached in churches about his life and faith much more often when an election draws near. Then he meets with the members of the congregation to ask them for money to re-elect and asks them to organize support for him. Does this violate federal law? Well, it could. The facts need to be laid out more and an investigation needs to be conducted. But the practice is certainly questionable and risks exposing the churches at which he campaigns - I mean, shares his life and faith - at risk of losing their tax-exempt status.

The Supreme Court already noted in a published written opinion that Kline skirted the bounds of unethical behavior for intentionally leaking sealed materials during the course of litigation. They essentially gave him another chance. Now we find him encouraging churches to skirt the federal laws that protect their tax-exempt status. Is that really the kind of person we want serving as AG?