Liberals Can All Go To France
How did Jenkins beat Boyda? Many people thought that Boyda had the election locked up. The Boyda campaign itself thought that they were up by 20 points going in to Election Day. Early on in the campaign Boyda turned down DNC money and throughout the campaign she refused to go negative. All of these things speak to just how confident she was that Kansans were going to send her back to Washington. So what went wrong? In my opinion, it wasn't anything that Boyda did wrong. I think it was Obama's fault. Nancy Boyda is quite possibly the only Democrat in the nation who was hurt by Barack Obama. I think Kansas voters went into the voting booth, realized that the Democrats were likely to be in control of both the Legislative and the Executive Branches, and panicked. They may have given thought to the possibility that the Democrats would have such a large majority that the Republicans wouldn't be able to block any legislation. This has to be the reason. It wasn't Jenkins' stellar debate performances. It wasn't her use of extremely persuasive "robo-calls". No, it was the fact that while some Republicans were willing to give a Democrat a chance under a Republican President, at a time when Republicans controlled both Houses, these same voters weren't ready to send a Democrat to a Washington that was under liberal control. Even a moderate Democrat like Boyda would be un-likely to stand up to Pelosi or Obama. Thankfully Kansans have a healthy dis-trust of Washington and believe in the principle of "checks and balances." Congratulations to Jenkins and her campaign. Thanks for giving us a chance to vote for a conservative in this liberal tidal wave.
This is my second week in the blog-o-sphere, and I gotta tell ya, I'm pretty Depressed. Drained. Disenfranchised. Disappointed. Dismayed. Daunted. Dejected. Dispirited. Downcast. Downhearted. Dejected. Alarmed. Appalled. Horrified. Morbid. Saddened. Shaken Shocked.Sorry.I couldn't find a word that describes how I am feeling right now. After my first real look into the blog-o-sphere, I realized that I didn't want to have anything to do with it. In our class we are studying the potential effects and benefits of "citizen journalism" and the internet. My teacher loves this idea. I fear that we should be spending more time studying the consequences. You know the saying, "I am now dumber for having listened to you."? It applies here.What is going on here isn't furthering political discourse, it is dividing America. I have read people saying things to one another that you'd never hear anyone say. People instigating each other, belittling one another. Personal attacks. Numerous occasions of intentional untruth. In our class we have learned that people tend to gravitate to blogs and websites that are more in line with their own belief system and that they are more likely to discount sources that are in conflict with their own belief system. We have learned that there is even a push to afford bloggers the same rights as "traditional journalists." It became apparent to me right away that no problems are ever going to be solved here. Just problems started. (Or at least perpetuated.) Sure, individual problems and ideas might come to light and be solved, but society as a whole will not benefit from this type of communication.Maybe is it's my Machiavellian side, but I can see the abstract, perfect way that blogging should work out, and the way it actually does work out. Two totally different worlds. Machiavelli would instruct us not to dwell on the fanciful lofty benefits that may come from blogging, but to instead focus on how it really works and work within that framework. This is why I am so bummed out. I am an idealist. Theoretically we should be able to take back our government and fix all of our nation's problems with the freedoms inherent in the internet. Whereas politicians are supposed to be our voice, the internet gives our voice back and provides a channel to let our voices be heard.More disturbing than all of this is the fact that I am participating in it. I am actually wasting my time reading what you think and sharing what I think. Now, maybe that sounds harsh, but seriously, at times it feels like I'm on the online chat-room equivalent to the Jerry Springer Show. I looked at my chosen blog name, All Liberals Can Go to France. What is that supposed to mean? I became the same biased blogger that I now realize I detest. And I did it just to get someone to read my opinion. Talk about vanity. But isn't that what you all are doing too? Think about it. Are you actually trying to change one another's minds, or are you just trying to impress the rest of us? Are you just logging on to take out your aggression on the rest of us anonymously? Are you willing to let your mind be changed, and be impressed by someone else's opinion? Or are you trying to fool and manipulate those less educated or less motivated to find the truth? I, for one, am not impressed. And while I may, in many cases, be less educated. But I will no longer be less motivated.Remember this one? "If you are not part of the solution, than you are part of the problem." I don't want to be part of the problem, so now I have to be part of the solution.My prediction:..No one will read this. No one will post a comment. My future blogs will be too boring to even bother. Why?Because there will be nothing to argue about. Everything I write will be true. And un-biased. Probably not your style.
Obama has been enjoying lots of attention from the press, and rightly so. He is a Presidential candidate after all. Just flip through the news channels or newspapers and you are sure to see Obama more than once. He is all over the place. This is probably why McCain launched his ad calling Obama "the biggest celebrity in the world." After the backlash this ad created both in the campaign and in the media itself, I realized something: the "mainstream media" is in the bag for Obama. Let me explain. The media took offense to the McCain ad because it was, in part, a shot at them too. They seem to have created and continue to be perpetuating his "celebrity" status. I mean, who ever heard of Barack Obama four years ago? And what exactly did he do in these past four years to gain his celebrity status? I argue that he hasn't done anything to earn his status (except have charisma), but instead, that he has been given a leg up by the powers that be in the national media.While the media has been reporting his every move, they have not engaged in any type of critical analysis of either him or his past. No investigative reporting has been done on him, short of the pieces done by Fox News and other conservative news outlets, and such reports are quickly dismissed as being biased. (As if "biased" is synonymous with "false.") The problem is, while everyone knows Fox's bias (they practically wear it on their sleeve), no one seems willing to acknowledge the bias that is running rampant in the mainstream media.I have noticed that MSNBC, CNN, and even AP writers seem to be doing Obama's work for him. They over-analyze McCain's and Palin's every move, every statement, and every slip of the tongue. When reporting Obama's recent tumble in the polls, all they talk about is what he can do to make a comeback. They subtly suggest that the only reason he will lose is all those racist white men and dis-enfranchised women voters. Could it be that there are still people who actually want to get to know their candidate and desire experience and a long history of public service in the White House? Could it be that some people have legitimate reasons as to why they prefer McCain?In closing I would like to ask you, would you have even read this article if McCain's name had been in the headline instead of Obama's? Try to view this week's news coverage with open eyes and an open mind; see if you, too, notice the one-sided nature of the mainstream media. *This is adapted from an article I wrote that appeared in the Washburn Review. You can find this article and respond to it at:http://media.www.washburnreview.org/media/storage/paper1140/news/2008/08/25/Opinion/Why-Obama.Will.Be.The.Next.President-3403535.shtml
Residents of Lawrence should be paying close attention to the District Attorney race in Shawnee County. Why? Because all of those "bad guys" from Topeka might be trading in their weekend passes to Lawrence in favor of a more permanent visit. If Eric Rucker, the Republican candidate for District Attorney, gets elected, he promises to strike fear in the hearts and minds of criminals again. If he does, they are likely to find another place to do "business." Rucker plans to make Topeka as un-welcoming as possible for the criminal element.Rucker looks well positioned to win the race, as the hardest part may likely be over. After defeating the incumbent DA, Robert Hecht, it seems like a downhill run straight through Chad Taylor (the Democratic nominee for District Attorney) and right into the DA's office. Taylor's youth and relative inexperience pitted against Rucker's 15 years + of prosecutorial experience and a 90% conviction rate seems unlikely to be much of a challenge.If Lawrence wishes to keep its city safe from those "bad Topekans," they better hope for an upset in Shawnee County. While Chad Taylor's emphasis on the "War on Drugs" might send a few more hippies your way, Eric Rucker promises to send the real criminals scurrying.