[mccookgazette.com] Fair ~ 69°F  
High: 85°F ~ Low: 61°F
Thursday, Aug. 28, 2014

Politics as usual

Tuesday, December 6, 2011

It has been an interesting experience watching the rise and fall of presidential candidate Herman Cain. Herman the man who talked good sense in promoting business, both large and small, as the economic engine of this country. Herman who encouraged moving away from an ever expanding federal government and back to the successful model envisioned by our founding fathers. Yes the same Herman that views our tax code as overly complicated, rigged to provide favor to all too many special interests and presented his 9-9-9 plan as a cure. I'll admit that I'm more than a little confused by that one but I could see the advantage of all people having to pay some federal tax rather than the approaching 50 percent that currently are allowed to opt out and still continue voting today.

Herman Cain, who rose from poverty, in large part caused by being born black in the segregated South, to a lifetime of great personal success in the world of business. Herman Cain whose campaign faltered from lack of money and a staff that could have done much better in handling controversy from unproven alleged sexual escapades has become an "also ran." Although his campaign is now "suspended" Herman is effectively gone as a viable candidate to the world's highest political office. It is a shame, because Herman Cain is a good man.

It makes me wonder who and why such a vendetta arose to keep Herman Cain from being able to continue running for president. One important factor comes to mind and that is the fact that Herman was born black.

He has the bonifides: slavery in his family tree, experienced and then rose above the prejudice of segregation and actually held real jobs that got him promoted in the world of business. All that record of accomplishment is in contrast to our first "black" president who is half white and half Kenyan and never held a "real" job in his life.

More than 90 percent of the black voters in the last presidential election voted for President Obama and his campaign obviously wants to safely keep that voting block intact for the next go around. Herman had to go.

It can't be that liberals and Democrats in general are against Herman Cain's alleged sexual peccadilloes. After all, they hold Teddy Kennedy up as one of their liberal icons and he managed, while newly married, to let one of his girlfriends die after leaving together from a drunken party. I'm not sure that Teddy's brother John was much of a straight arrow in the cheating on his wife business, either, but the press of that time chose to ignore his escapades. Then there is the well-documented record of the antics of their latest hero President Bill Clinton. Enough said! It can't be the mostly trumped-up sexual accusations of Candidate Cain that brings him to such titillating disfavor in the liberal press.

It is obvious that whoever was afraid of Herman Cain has done their dirty work and Cain is gone. Now which of the remaining Republican candidates will "they" turn against next? I think that we have a president who isn't able to run against his record and therefore all we will see until the November election is a Chicago-brand of sordid politics of personal attack and blackmail. It promises to be painful but interesting to watch.

Kudos to the city crews who did a superb job of cleaning the many miles of McCook Streets following last Saturday's unforecasted heavy wet snow. The designated snow routes are clear--well done. With the streets acceptably cleared the tired crew tackled the airport and again an excellent job of clearing the snow that had stopped all air traffic into and out of McCook. Well done and greatly appreciated.

My old (or is that "more mature") Air Force friends that gather each fall to set up "deer camp" chose the height of Saturday's storm to travel to this area. John from Abilene, Texas described leaving Oberlin, Kansas, headed north and managing to stay on the road by judging the distance between grass and weeds sticking up alongside the roadway. That was until he hit the Nebraska line where he found the dark pavement of a well cleared road. The others drove I-80, which they described as in terrible condition until they turned off to find Highway 6-34 well-cleared and easy to drive. We indeed are privileged to live in an area where we are well-served by state and municipal workers who care.

Tomorrow marks the anniversary of the diabolical Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. That attack launched the United States into World War II, and changed this country forever. Millions of young men that had never traveled beyond the county seat signed up, became skilled fighting men and were sent to parts of the world that they'd only read of in school books. Then they came home and became educated thanks to the "GI Bill" and prospered more than they ever dreamed was possible.

The role of women changed forever as they stepped up to "man" the production lines, drove busses, operated the trains and a few even managed to break the glass barrier in the world of military aviation. The changed and reinvigorated United States of America then entered into an era of prosperity that we are still enjoying today. The survivors of that attack on Pearl Harbor are now few in number due to the ravages of time but their heroism should never be forgotten.

That is how I saw it.

Dick Trail


Fact Check
See inaccurate information in this story?


Comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please Login or Create an account first, and then you will be able to flag a comment as objectionable. Please also note that those who post comments on mccookgazette.com may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

"It makes me wonder who and why such a vendetta arose to keep Herman Cain from being able to continue running for president. One important factor comes to mind and that is the fact that Herman was born black."

Yes, it couldn't possibly be the alledged 13 year affair in which Cain admits to paying her off for.

-- Posted by bberry on Wed, Dec 7, 2011, at 9:42 AM
Response by Bruce Baker:
Why, as a nation, would we care about the 13 year affair of a presidential "candidate," when we obviously had no problem and took next to no action, when faced with our "President" having extramarital affairs with interns in the White House?

Couldn't that be considered prostitution? Also, why does every negative thing that comes out about a canidate always considered to be dirt from the opposition and also be considered negative? Would you prefer not to have all the knowledge availible about the canidates? But, I guess to a large amount of people from both the D and R parties they really don't care much about the canidates themselves but, pay more attention to the D and R next to their names when they vote.

It just amazes me that with the ease that information can be found nowadays that a large portion of voters fail to take the time to get to know the canidates. It is also sad that people let two letters decide who they will vote for rather then what the person in running on.

I guess until people take the time to become informed and look past the D and R we will continue down the destructive path we are headed on.

-- Posted by carlsonl on Wed, Dec 7, 2011, at 10:14 AM

Bruce didn't know an impeachment was next to no action.

-- Posted by carlsonl on Wed, Dec 7, 2011, at 4:07 PM

Bruce,

They obviously did have a problem or they wouldn't have impeached Clinton for it.

Why are Republicans willing to look the other way for Cain but not Clinton?

-- Posted by bberry on Wed, Dec 7, 2011, at 4:10 PM

I am reluctant to weigh in on this subject, but I dont believe Clinton was impeached for having an affair in the White House. Someone please correct me.

-- Posted by doodle bug on Wed, Dec 7, 2011, at 6:06 PM

I would answer you DB but because I tend to lean to the left whatever answer I gave would be considered wrong.

-- Posted by carlsonl on Wed, Dec 7, 2011, at 6:19 PM

All kidding aside the impeachment was for perjury in the case of the Monica scandal.

-- Posted by carlsonl on Wed, Dec 7, 2011, at 6:22 PM

The impeachment stemmed from perjury and obstruction of justice involving monica lewinksy. I imagine you can split hairs where you'd like to.

-- Posted by bberry on Wed, Dec 7, 2011, at 6:22 PM

bberry I am sure bill did.

-- Posted by carlsonl on Wed, Dec 7, 2011, at 6:22 PM

As it were Carlson, nothing alledgedly happened south of the equator.

-- Posted by bberry on Wed, Dec 7, 2011, at 6:24 PM

I was talking about the mustache. Sicko!

-- Posted by carlsonl on Wed, Dec 7, 2011, at 6:24 PM

Oh wait that is Hilary with the stache my bad. Ignore last 2 posts.

-- Posted by carlsonl on Wed, Dec 7, 2011, at 6:25 PM

Perhaps the difference is allegations vs. evidence?

The case against Cain didn't go further than the allegations.

The case against Clinton in the Lewinski sex scandal involved DNA.

Not saying Cain didn't do it...just saying the case didn't progress further than that.

-- Posted by Mickel on Wed, Dec 7, 2011, at 10:29 PM

I wasn't aware the case against Cain was closed. Will have to look into that.

-- Posted by carlsonl on Wed, Dec 7, 2011, at 10:38 PM

I don't think it really is a rebuttal for Bruces point regardless of allegation vs evidence. You don't pay someone off because you're innocent. The fact they brought Lewinksy up and impeached Clinton for perjury about it was enough to show they did care whether or not he let her raise his flag. It is interesting though they will try and let both Cain and Gingrich slide affairs though.

It is hypocritical to say it's only important when they're in the White House.

All this aside, Cain was a mediocre candidate. Race wasn't a factor in him dropping out of the race, nor was there any secret vendetta as Dick implies.

-- Posted by bberry on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 7:09 AM

Imagine that, no proof. Just more speculation.

-- Posted by bberry on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 11:40 AM

Everything is always a conspiracy. LOL and grandma I find it funny you never give reasons. You just throw out some useless/false info and a quick liberal bash and then you are gone. You have yet to make a point based on fact or even share your reasons for thinking. Please come back when you feel like adding something useful.

-- Posted by carlsonl on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 11:41 AM

Hmmmmm took place under republican president. How do you like that military machine now.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/1...

-- Posted by carlsonl on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 11:53 AM

Using our names isn't going to make whatever you're saying true. What I post is actually backed by proof, yours is only speculation which is why you cannot provide any. I also do not feel the need to hide my name when I post.

-- Posted by bberry on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 11:57 AM

I probably shouldn't have made that last one political. I think both sides should be equally angered about this and anyone involved should face charges.

-- Posted by carlsonl on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 12:00 PM

If he is involved and it is knowingly false information then yes.

-- Posted by carlsonl on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 12:20 PM

Also I would point out that as a nation we tend to credit the president for the good or bad that happens under their term or terms. This gets even more magnified when it has anything to do with military or government decisions. So wouldn't it be fair to place some of the blame on Bush since this took place under his watch. But the article also states the it ended in 2008 so he may have put a stop to it. I guess we will have to wait for further details when and if they come out.

-- Posted by carlsonl on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 12:23 PM

Selling guns really isn't a new thing to the US government so it is one of those topics of where do you draw the line and stop it.

-- Posted by carlsonl on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 12:28 PM

That project began under Bush. Obama is a non issue.

-- Posted by bberry on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 12:45 PM

There is no reason to answer, it's not even related. But it is hypocritical of you to accuse me of side stepping comments.

-- Posted by bberry on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 1:15 PM

Ok, let me explain spell it out for you yet again.

Obama is not related to Project Gun Running because it started under Bush. So therefor, asking if Obama should be prosecuted for something that didn't involve him is pointless. If Obama broke the law in any way, then yes, he should be prosecuted.

And yes, it is still hypocritical as you are guilty for dodging both comments and facts.

While it is fun to entertain your speculation and hypothetical situations, there is more to be had in discussing what is really happening.

-- Posted by bberry on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 1:32 PM

I can't pretend to know all the details of what took place. From what I have read I see it as a mistake made during a war. It was a risk taken by someone and the risk as of right now has been a mistake. As far as prosecution of anyone involved I think there needs to be alot more infomation presented to the public before I could make a decision. I guess as of right now I look at it the same way as any other mistake that we have made in other wars that have resulted in deaths. It sucks but it comes with the territory.

-- Posted by carlsonl on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 1:32 PM

I was going to give you some credit, but looks like I was wrong to do so Grandmajo. Not only did you attempt to distort that Obama was not involved in a project that started under Bush, you continue speculation that IF Holder was involved certainly Obama had to know. Let me know when you prove that both were involved.

"What is really happening" refers to your accusations that Obama and Holder are involved with that project with no proof. But why would I hold you to that, you haven't been able to really provide any accurate information so far so what did I expect? You would have at least been a little more accurate to blame them for operation fast and furious, although that hasn't been tied to them either but has been to the ATF.

Again, when you provide enough evidence to support whatever you're talking about feel free to share it and we can go from there.

I'm not going to hold my breath though.

-- Posted by bberry on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 1:53 PM

Yes gun runner started in 2006 so berry putting it under bush has more merit then you putting it to obama. If you would have stuck with fast and furious then you might be able to make a case if you provided some evidence.

I have also heard from many people from both sides refer to the illegal activities at the border as a war against drugs, guns, and illegals. So although it may not fit under the technical definition of a "WAR" it is a war.

-- Posted by carlsonl on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 2:05 PM

So grandmajo if we are going to discuss departments and their bosses and the outcome of the departments decisions as a reason to prosecute. Then I guess we better round up Bush for the major fubar about the WMD's the led us into Iraq and resulted in far more lives lost. I am curious do you think Bush should be prosecuted for this?

-- Posted by carlsonl on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 2:09 PM

We will just ignore the fact the ATF is ran by Melson and Hoover. Because Eric Holder is the attorney general, doesn't mean he was responsible. We're still waiting on that proof.

-- Posted by bberry on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 2:10 PM

If that is all you want then YES!!!!! Also berry already answered that as well. It is in the fourth sentence.

Ok, let me explain spell it out for you yet again.

Obama is not related to Project Gun Running because it started under Bush. So therefor, asking if Obama should be prosecuted for something that didn't involve him is pointless. If Obama broke the law in any way, then yes, he should be prosecuted.

And yes, it is still hypocritical as you are guilty for dodging both comments and facts.

While it is fun to entertain your speculation and hypothetical situations, there is more to be had in discussing what is really happening.

-- Posted by bberry on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 1:32 PM

-- Posted by carlsonl on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 2:17 PM

There was no dodging, if either are found guilty of breaking the law they will be prosecuted. I'm really not sure what point you are getting at accusing me of side stepping the question when I have already answered it. Guess I should have spelled out Holders name also.

-- Posted by bberry on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 2:23 PM

I see you are also still twisting my comments. Thought maybe we were past that error on your part. Anyway I am glad you are back been fairly dead in here with you gone.

-- Posted by carlsonl on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 2:24 PM

Yes. But what is your point?

-- Posted by bberry on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 2:29 PM

Yes they should also be prosecuted. Sadly I don't think there is a person in washington that isn't breaking the law in some way for personal advancement. This happens when we as a public allow them to make the laws of what they can and cannot do when in office. I think any raise or any other rights above the rest of the population should be a national vote.

-- Posted by carlsonl on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 2:30 PM

You've not explained what your point was. You just wanted to know an answer to a hypothetical question?

-- Posted by bberry on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 2:35 PM

I have also seen how stuck in there ways older generations tend to be. So my confidence and ability to look at things from both points of view make me arrogant? We then I guess that is what I am. But, I would rather be what you call arrogant and looking towards a better future for all then looking at the past and hoping for a better future for the few.

-- Posted by carlsonl on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 2:45 PM

Well actually Grandmajo, it had nothing to do with us "procastinating" an answer.

"Yes, everyone should be outraged, regardless of party. For once, after your initial glee towards bashing a republican president without providing any proof that the president or his cabinet was involved (just had to throw that in) I agree with you. Also agree that those who are responsible should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. The same for the botched gun-running project in Mexico! Wouldn't you agree?"

You implied here that the President and his cabinet member, reffering to Obama and Holder, should be prosecuted for the botched gun running. Then we went on to say they were not related in which you attempted to distort the facts and then continued on to say we hadn't answered that if they were found guilty if they should be prosecuted. Although we further asserted they were not associated and that you had no proof. You continued on the path that we didn't answer if they were found guilty if they should be prosecuted. Although you side stepped the fact they were not proven to be related to the botched gun running.

Then you turned your implied accusation of Obama and Holder into us not answering the hypothetical question which had nothing to do with the initial assertion.

Oh well.

-- Posted by bberry on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 2:49 PM

Quick question. If someone is found guilty wouldn't they already be in the process of being prosecuted??

-- Posted by carlsonl on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 2:52 PM

That wasn't your initial assertion. You assumed they were already related and guilty to the project, you were simply trying to get us to agree with it.

This is your first post in relation to the matter:

"Yes, everyone should be outraged, regardless of party. For once, after your initial glee towards bashing a republican president without providing any proof that the president or his cabinet was involved (just had to throw that in) I agree with you. Also agree that those who are responsible should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. The same for the botched gun-running project in Mexico! Wouldn't you agree?"

Which was then backed by this:

"And, how do you feel about "gun runner"? If Holder was involved, or if Obama was involved, should they be prosecuted?"

It really isn't my problem if you can't keep your own posts straight.

-- Posted by bberry on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 3:29 PM

You'll have a hard time trying to say it was a coincidental correlation.

-- Posted by bberry on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 3:31 PM

Nice try, you weren't using the two just as an example. Keep back tracking.

-- Posted by bberry on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 3:42 PM

"There is little argument against the fact that laws, US and international, were broken in "gun runner" and a border agent, along with many others, were killed as a result. My question still remains, if it is found that Holder was involved, and Obama signed off on this snafu, do you believe they should be prosecuted?"

You can stop hiding behind the word if. Again, you already assumed they were related to it, otherwise you wouldn't have pointed them out.

-- Posted by bberry on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 3:47 PM

This further backs the assertion;

"So the ATF is not part of the Department of Justice, which is administered by the AG, Eric Holder, whose boss is Barack Obama, and both of them did not know or should have been expected to know what the operation was doing?"

-- Posted by bberry on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 3:49 PM

There you thought you were making a point by twisting your way into saying that I implied Holder was not related to the ATF although he is the attorney general. This also implied that I was wrong that the two were not related or guilty of involvement. Then you back track to say you did not imply that at all, instead you just wanted to know the answer to a hypothetical question.

Whatever you say Jo.

-- Posted by bberry on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 3:54 PM

Remember brian she was around when the twist came around. It is her nature.

-- Posted by carlsonl on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 3:57 PM

and since I am a sexist I sure hope she is making me a sandwich.

-- Posted by carlsonl on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 3:59 PM

"It is most definitely my opinion that they both knew about the operation.."

I already knew this. But this conflicts with your post saying:

"Brian, if you saw an implication that I believed they were guilty, you need to comprehend a little better."

And if it turns that they are both guilty, I'll have mine with a side of ketchup. Thanks.

-- Posted by bberry on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 4:08 PM

I think you're falsely accusing me of something I didn't say. If you can prove to me where I did, I will certainly apologize.

-- Posted by bberry on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 4:12 PM

We will see I guess.

-- Posted by bberry on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 4:15 PM

I have no attitude towards women. Just was poking some fun due to the fact you think I am sexist. Also not sure which grandmother you are refering too so couldn't really answer that one.

-- Posted by carlsonl on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 4:22 PM

I must say I am getting curious as to who your are with this apparent knowledge of me.

-- Posted by carlsonl on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 4:24 PM

While I disagree with any confusion on my part, any other confusion is based on the individual.

-- Posted by bberry on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 4:26 PM

Well she wouldn't know who I was to form an opinion anymore due to her illness. But back when she could she probably would have chuckled a bit about my comment and that would have been that.

-- Posted by carlsonl on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 4:26 PM

"And also, Brian, where do you get the idea that I am "looking at the past and hoping for a better future for the few"? That is just about as silly a comment as the comment on which I challenged Lanny a while ago. Once again, you missed a point that you will someday figure out for yourself, I can't help you with that. Sorry!"

I didn't make that comment.

-- Posted by bberry on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 5:14 PM

No I guess I don't. I didn't blame you for someone elses comments.

-- Posted by bberry on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 5:23 PM

How is blaming someone for someone elses post in comparison to making something up the same? Or is it the same because you are now "making crap up"?

However, I didn't make anything up. You agreed to what I was saying about your posts, although I don't think you intended to.

-- Posted by bberry on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 5:33 PM

I am CONFUSED NOW!!!!!!!!!

-- Posted by carlsonl on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 5:39 PM

Tried that look where it led. Thanks for trying though.

-- Posted by carlsonl on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 5:54 PM

I never said I was confused Jo. I believe it is you who are. You haven't answered why the two are the same yet. But then again, it's somewhat presumptious of me to think you're saying I am one of the two. If you are then thanks.

-- Posted by bberry on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 5:56 PM

Well, maybe some humor will ease the tension in this blog a little bit.

Sign In Local Hardware Store:

Children found roaming the isles unattended will be given a double shot expresso and a free puppy!!

-- Posted by Geezer on Thu, Dec 8, 2011, at 7:18 PM

Geezer!!

too funny; add a drum set, fire truck or cymbals.

-- Posted by boojum666 on Fri, Dec 9, 2011, at 8:39 PM

I think he should have stayed in and let the Republican voters decide if they wanted him to run against Obama or not.

-- Posted by npwinder on Fri, Dec 9, 2011, at 9:05 PM


Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account on this site, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.

Dick Trail
The Way I Saw It