Views on the presidential election

Why they can’t vote for Obama

I cannot vote for Barack Obama because of the extreme cynicism of his program. He “buys” votes from 95 percent of the electorate, promising to make up the deficit from the other 5 percent, figuring he can afford to sacrifice that percent of the vote.

It would be more honest if he said his programs are going to cost some money, so he will let the Bush tax cuts expire on all voters. (If these cuts were so miniscule for the majority of the people, what would they care?) If he did that, I might respect him enough to reconsider.

Stephen Kunz
Overland Park

I wish I could vote for Barack Obama, as he is very charismatic and looks and acts presidential, but I just cannot. Here’s why.

I am very concerned about his policies.

His election would give almost unlimited power to Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Charles Schumer and Barney Frank, which is frightening.

Ray Trowbridge
Overland Park

Congressman Barney Frank couldn’t wait until the election was over before stating that the military should be cut 25 percent. At a time when Russia and China are building up their defense, Democrats want to cut ours. This should be a warning.

If Barack Obama is elected, with a Democratic majority in Congress, there would be nothing to hinder a Democratic, far-left agenda from being instituted to the fullest extent. Do most Americans want unrestricted far left policies enacted? I think not.

John McCain is not a liar. If he says he will reform things from the way the Bush White House was run, he means it. It’s not a pie-in-the-sky promise.

That can’t be said of Obama. He and McCain agreed together to take only public funds for the campaign. Then Obama raised $150 million privately.

Chad Kincham
Liberty

D student or A student?

There are clearly differences in the two presidential candidates, but after having endured the administration of George Bush for eight years, the decision seems elementary.

Why would people vote for another academic underachiever? John McCain is the son and grandson of top naval admirals. This obviously helped him get admitted into the U.S. Naval Academy. He graduated near the bottom of the class and struggled with mathematics. Is this the person we want to be making decisions about the economy?

In contrast, Barack Obama received his undergraduate degree from Columbia University and then graduated from Harvard Law School, where he was the editor of the Harvard Law Review. He is obviously an academic overachiever and understands the complex issues that are facing this country.

Do we want a D student or an A student leading this country? The choice is obvious. Vote for Barack Obama on Nov. 4.

Stuart Waldman
Overland Park

Forebears would be proud

On Nov. 4 I will be voting, in part, on behalf of family and friends who are no longer here but who I believe would be proud of Barack Obama’s candidacy

These people mostly worked and voted during tumultuous times in this country, in the 1950s and ’60s. I will carry their names with me to my voting place.

I encourage us to reflect and remember those persons who have been instrumental voters in our lives: parents, grandparents, sisters, brothers, aunts, uncles, cousins, friends and neighbors. This election is one we all will remember. It is one in which our participation as voters is vital.

Sharon Cheers
Kansas City

Vote to keep power balanced

A Democratic president, a filibuster-proof Senate and Democratic-controlled House, all run by Nancy Pelosi and her cronies, will be the most catastrophic government in the history of the United States.

“W” may be the most objectionable occupant of the White House, but do not compare John McCain to him.

Moderate Democrats and Republicans, unite! Vote for the McCain-Palin ticket to bring some balance of power to our wonderful country.

Joe Bond Elliott
Overland Park

Obama socialist? Hardly

To those afraid of Barack Obama, “the socialist,” I’d like to offer a little perspective. I was born and raised in a country with higher taxes, stringent pro-labor laws, and universal health care. Not many would call this country — Germany — socialist. Yet if you plopped Sen. Obama into the German parliament, you would see him sitting at a lonely outpost on the far right.

Obama is no more a socialist than Bill Clinton, Bush senior or Ronald Reagan. All he proposes is to restore the tax code to what it was during the Clinton years. Were we socialist then? If so, then I, for one, am longing for those socialist days of old, when our economy was still sound. The fact is, even John McCain called the Bush tax cuts irresponsible at the time.

So please, educate yourself about the candidates and their proposals, and vote accordingly. But don’t vote based on some silly label one politician sticks on another.

Sine Thieme
Overland Park

Look who lacked experience

When someone questions the experience of Barack Obama, I am reminded of our 16th president. He, too, was from Illinois and spent a number of years in the Illinois General Assembly. He spent only two years in the U.S. Congress.

A great and inspirational speaker, he was tested, from within, during his time in office by opponents of the republic and blasphemers of the equality of all men. He persevered, and our nation was saved.

His name was Abraham Lincoln. You may have heard of him.

Jon Erickson
Liberty

These are our choices?

It seems like all we hear about in the polls are those who are committed and those who are “undecided.” How about those of us who don’t care for either of the two major candidates running for our highest office?

I believe one should vote on candidates and issues they truly believe in, but if you are not convinced it’s the right choice, don’t mark the ballot. There is no way I could take pride in voting for either Barack Obama or John McCain. To vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for an evil.

I am certain there are many out there who feel the same way I do.

Jerry Mathews
Kansas City

I was sitting down at The Brick the other night, sipping on a cold Pabst Blue Ribbon, and I got to thinking about how people voted for George W. because he seemed like the kind of guy you’d like to have a beer with.

Then I thought to myself. “Why would anybody in their right mind want any of these people to be president of the United States?”

Makes you wonder.

Mark Hastert
Kansas City

A pretty disquieting theory

Kathleen Parker tells us that John McCain chose Sarah Palin because he was infatuated with her (10/27, Opinion). Parker’s husband and a New York Times Magazine writer and a 2003 scientific study all so attest. The latter even revealed that “pretty women foil men’s ability to assess the future.”

So now we know. An attractive woman who achieved must have used her feminine wiles to get there. Thus, new-age, socially sensitive males must avoid the accusation by selecting the ugliest woman on the list.

Which females will be the next TV news anchors? Which women will advance into Barack Obama’s (or McCain’s) cabinet?

By extension, do pretty coeds get better grades from male professors? Are male jurors swayed by an attorney who happens to be a looker? Disquieting, isn’t it?

Reta Jo Mitchell
Kansas City

Comments

[RBeigher]

Engineer is wrong. I have kept every tax form and booklet since I started doing my taxes in the early 1960s. The Clinton tax increases were only on high income workers, those who got the biggest tax cuts under Ronald Reagan. If he got a tax increase after he retired, he is indeed a fortunate person to have had enough retirement income to have received a tax increase. I have always said that I would rather have the income to pay taxes on than not to have the income.

[Engineer]

RBeigher
"At least Obama tells you where he will get the funds". No, he does not. Obama's stated tax plans, based on 2008 projections before the financial crisis, would produce slightly less revenue than the present schedule under President Bush. On top of that he proposed to send out treasury checks. So where is the money coming from for his promised projects? Either taxes he has not revealed or huge deficits. Richardson just brought the $250K down to $120K. Who knows where the floor really is?

[Engineer]

RBeigher
I said nothing about the size of the Clinton tax increases, just that he did increase taxes and increased them retroactively. Which he did. I still don't understand how that was constitutional. As I remember it, Clinton pretty much increased taxes across the board. I know he increased mine and I was already retired by that time. But if you can show me tax rate schedules from the two presidencies , please do so. In the meantime I'll Google it.

[RBeigher]

Hey, engineer, read it amd weep.

That last link was to the wrong site: This one is right:
http://www.factcheck.org/treasury_tax_expert_to_bush_clintons_increase.html

[RBeigher]

Hey, engineer, read it amd weep.

http://blogs.kansascity.com/unfettered_letters/

[RBeigher]

Oh, come on, Engineer! Where in the world did you get the information that Bill Clinton raised taxes on everyone? That just didn't happen. Bill Clinton rolled back tax cuts that Reagan gave to the rich. He did increase the federal gasoline tax by 4 cents a gallon. Republicans screamed, "largest tax increase in the history of the United States.” Please, can't they ever tell the truth? They use that claim all of the time and are using it against Democratic office holders who have only been in office for two years. Gee whiz, man!

By the way, the federal highway trust fund just went insolvent in September, and Congress had to allocate 8 billion dollars from the general fund to pay for highways and bridges. That means that our kids and grandkids will have to pay the income taxes needed to pay for our highway infrastructure, and we will probably have to borrow the money from the Chinese. The borrow-and-spend Republicans are trying to bankrupt the United States by bribing the voters with their no new taxes pledge. At least Obama tells you where he will get the funds; he will get it from the wealthy and the corporations that got the big tax cuts from Bush.

[solomon]

Engineer,

I clearly stated that I don't hold the tax increases against Reagan and Bush the Elder. They were doing what had to be done. McCain saying there won't be tax increases, IMO, is impossible BS. It will have to be done.

I don't know about you, but I'm sick of this and ready to deal with whatever is ahead.

I hope you looked at the other two links. Seems like everyday lately some Rep women is getting caught doing something stupid or saying something like "obama is a bigger danger than osama".

[Engineer]

Jim
I heard him say that. If you have the clip and he says something different give me a link. If he has any idea of doing the things he has promised the Bush deficits are going to look like surpluses.
solomon
Bill Clinton is the only one who ever ran on "a tax cut for the middle class" and then raised taxes retroactively on everybody as soon as he got in.. Sp far BC is the only one who ever raised taxed retroactively. Will Obama be the second?
Obama has said he will "cut taxes for those making less than $250,000 or whatever his figure of the day is. In answering Joe it came out that the "tax cut" for those not paying taxes would be a treasury check. Call it what you want to me that's welfare, the good old dole. Another way of looking at it is as a legal way to buy votes. As to GHWB, the man's problem an honest man dealing with Demo pols. They told him that if he would just sign the tax increase they gave their word they would cut programs. Instead, after GHWB signed the tax increase. they increased spending and then used the signing of the tax increase against him in the next election.

[solomon]

Good evening Engineer,

Your post got me thinking about how Presidential candidates always promise(lie) to not raise taxes. Reagan and Bush come to mind, so I typed "read my lips" into search and came up with this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_new_taxes

Relevant because these guys found they had to raise taxes. Bush found that he had to raise taxes because of the previous Reagan tax policies. I hold neither of them at fault, as they were doing what they saw fit for the country, but they did not do what they promised. I think it is irresponsible for McCain to say he would not have to champion new taxes. No matter which of these jokers gets in we'll see taxes change. I know you have a resentment when your tax money goes to Americans you feel less worthy on account of who they are.(which has nothing to do with race, as most of the "spread the wealth"money will probably go to whites, so please don't think I'm making this a race issue)

You like to mention welfare checks. I looked for the evidence that Obama has plans to send out "welfare checks". Although I did not find anything that says that, I did find this.

http://wonkette.com/tag/obama-bucks

And then the GOP official who resigned and defended herself. What do you think she said?

http://www.dailybulletin.com/ci_10790208

I just threw these in for grins. :-)

[Jim]

"And in that interview he did say that if he and others like him were Supreme Court Justices they could override the Constitution."

Stop lying, Eng. You're better than that.

[RBeigher]

Experience has become a big topic. George W. Bush had five years of executive experience as Governor of Texas. What good did that do him? I would rather have an intelligent, concerned person with real leadership skills.

I am getting tired of hearing about Joe the fraud. He is not a licensed plumber, he did not attend apprentice school, he makes nowhere near enough to get a tax rate increase, he owes back property taxes, and yet John McCain constantly refers to him as an example of who would get a tax increase under Obama. McCain has now expanded his lie to include "Working Joes."

John McCain leads a life of wealth. He has no real concerns for the average working man or woman. I am tired of all of his lies. This election needs to be over and our country needs an honest, energetic leader like Barack Obama.

[repete]

C'mon Eng, both McCain and Obama have been suckling public funds for a while now. In fact, McCain has lived off taxpayers' money since for longer than Obama has been alive.

[Engineer]

One of the letters asks "do you want an A student or a D student for president? I don't want a student at all. I want a man who has faced real problems and who has done something in his mature life besides work on extracting money from government. Another letter writer says Obama's proposed tax plan is the same as Bill Clinton's. If the writer really thinks this and is a voter this gives a pretty good picture of Obama voters. Even BC didn't raise taxes to send out welfare checks. He did, however, run on the promise of tax cuts for the "middle class" but when he got in he raised taxed on every body. Standard Democrat MO? Every time Obama talks the level at which tax raises will start changes. And in that interview he did say that if he and others like him were Supreme Court Justices they could override the Constitution. FDR couldn't get away with that though he tried, perhaps Obama can.

[GCYL]

“She either doesn't know or just gambled on insulting the intelligence of the audience.” - People are Dumb

Is this some kind of “one up” game between your and her? Your implication that Obama would have no input during a Constitutional Amendment is disturbingly naïve. The President’s position on any constitutional Amendment would be critical for it passing/failing on the Federal level. Visiting State Legislature prior to their voting could be critical.

Thanks to the Royals and the Chiefs I can understand your complete disregard for the management and coaching staff. Politics has to be one of the biggest “games” of them all and more often than not the President/coach has a big say on how this “game” will be played.

Frankly I’m amazed Gov Palin didn’t copy the typical Bush hater rant and claim Obama will trample and ignore our Constitution. The accusation is easier to stick and it’s a more realistic goal for the political party in power.

[solomon]

Good afternoon Peoples,

My guess is both, she doesn't know and she was reading something written for her by the fearmongers.

I'm sure someone here has an excuse for her though.

[Moral City USA]

Rogue, be careful what you presume. I did not mention abortion. I was thinking about the decision to allow evidence gained in illegal searches to be used in prosecution OR the Guantanamo Bay case where Roberts Alito and Scalia were the only ones dissenting to provide Constitutional rights to the detainees. I dont like the detainees any better than you, but if WE detain them, WE must follow our own law. And we are not at war.

Perhaps you could send a copy of the Constitution to Gov Palin, she was campaigning yesterday and saying Obama will "rewrite the Constitution". Maybe you could point her to the amendment provisions where its clear that a constitutional amendment requires 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of state legislature....AND the acting President has no formal role in the amendment process and cannot veto an amendment.

She either doesn't know or just gambled on insulting the intelligence of the audience.

[solomon]

Jim,

you madcap

McCain:"I'd tap that" was hilarious

[Jim]

Let's forget about the election and have a dance-off instead. If it goes anything like this, Sarah Palin could win the presidency handily:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlAKnSCRWQM

[solomon]

Good afternoon Gary,

You raised an excellent point.
Why hasn't he been willing to release his grades? A quick check of the internet shows he graduated magna cum laude with his J.D. What could he be afraid for us to see.

On the other side, Sen McCain has been very forthcoming that he was one of the best ever examples of preferential treatment.

VVVVVEEEEERRRRRYYY IIINNNTTTEEERRREEESSSTTTIIINNNG!!!!

[Gary]

"[McCain] graduated near the bottom of the class and struggled with mathematics." So, where did Obama graduate in his class at Columbia and later Harvard law [his law review position was electoral and not based on grades], and how did he do in all his subjects?

[solomon]

My post to Mrctnts I just corrected was lost in Limbo, but upon comparison they both say what I believe.

[solomon]

Marctnts,

I left out a keyword..."Not" everything regarding race is racist.

[repete]

The pretzel logic in some of these letters is priceless. One guy dismisses the Obama tax cuts a bread and circus. The next pretends a D majority and a D executive spells the end of the world. Another McCain supporter says McCain isn't a liar because McCain says McCain isn't a liar. And yet another says we should vote for McCain, not because of his policies, but to maintain a balance of power.

This place stinks of desperation.

[solomon]

Marctnts,

What I said goes towards your last post as well as EKAN. Everything regarding race is not racist.

You and I have never disagreed on the lack of virtue of both parties.

[solomon]

EKAN,

I used to argue the point here that it is natural for blacks to support the first black candidate for president, not racist. Not everything that has to do with race is not racist. People vote for the person that they feel represents them best, we have done it for years. Race is just not an issue when the candidates are normal(white)

Here's a good word problem for you. If there are 16 million black voters, and they all vote for Obama instead of 2.5 million voting Republican as they did last time, how many white Americans who won't support a black man no matter what will it take to negate the Obama support? I just put this out for fun, wondering if you think there are that many really prejudiced whites.

I agree with you that blacks have been in the Democratic camp without reaping the benefits. I think that says something sad about both parties.