Bleeding Heartland - Recent Comments

I have been there

desmoinesdem — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 14:56:57 GMT

I have had that experience of not being crazy about any of the candidates in a Democratic primary before. My approach when that happens is to vote for the least bad candidate (from my perspective). Other people stay home or write in the name of someone they could strongly support.

Anybody can rattle off votes

Peggy — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 14:13:34 GMT

on particular bills but I learned long ago that it's a tactic used by both sides to discredit the opponent when there's always more to the story.

For example, I would consider any candidate's 17% rating by the NEA an absolute plus! The NEA is pro-abortion (I wonder where they think their students are going to come from), they're anti-family and they're "all union, all the time." No one is in the back pocket of the Democrat Party more than the NEA.

For you to conclude, based on their rating, that every King vote against the NEA was "anti-public education" is so simplistic as to be laughable.

I'm glad Latham agreed to a debate, finally

desmoinesdem — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 13:41:23 GMT

but clearly he wasn't willing to debate on neutral territory. A conservative talk radio station is not likely to send any tough questions his way.

I guess by "had a command of the issues" you mean "consistently ran away from his lockstep Republican voting record."

you lack maturity

desmoinesdem — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 13:37:41 GMT

and can't seem to handle the fact that your candidate lost the primary.

People "pressured leadership" to put her in? That doesn't even make sense. She won more than 50 percent of the vote in a four-way primary. Just because your candidate threw a temper tantrum doesn't mean who can rewrite history.

Greenwald did well in the debate and pointed out that Latham is not willing to take responsibility for his own voting record.

Yuck

Bill Spencer — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 06:01:33 GMT

I listened to the debate tonight like a few others I'm sure and then I read through the Iowa Independent live blog of it.

I have a few very brief comments that I'd like to share about the debate.

First and foremost, what happened to DesMoinesDem wanting someone to follow Tom Latham around in a chicken suit because he apparently refused to debate Greenwald back in August? Got your debate didn't you? And now - what do you do? You complain about the callers and the format. Does anything ever please you?

Next, I was interested to learn more about the negativity that was brought up and so I went and checked out this site entitled replacetomlatham.com.

I am shocked. Shocked and disgusted. I read some of the stuff on there and thought I was reading junior high insults between two thirteen year old girls. William Meyers would have run a campaign based on issues instead of insults.

Do Iowans really want to elect someone who puts this kind of garbage on a website:

"Please stop tapping your foot, its distracting"
"Boehner and I are tanning later. Wanna come?"
"Don't look behind you, but that's EXACTLY the goatee that i want to grow."

This kind of stuff is outrageous. William Meyers would have run a more honorable campaign.

Iowans are sick of the partisan name calling. We have a financial crisis on our hands and we have troops engaged in a war with terrorists and what do I find on replacetomlatham.com? Not substantial policy statements but highly inappropriate content.

I'm lucky that all my kids have grown up and moved away - otherwise I'd have to block that site because of some of the questionable content.

I give the debate to Latham - handily. He had command of the issues and did a good job pointing out his bipartisan record of achieving results for Iowans. I like that. Latham gets the job done without seeking the camera or the microphone.

Latham is looking better and better to me everyday and I didn't think I'd be saying that if William were still around. William dropped the ball and after seeing Becky's inappropriate and somewhat juvenile website - my support for Latham is definitely growing.

of course

RUKIDDINGME — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 04:57:25 GMT

desmoinesdem on the attack again as her candidate gets whooped on.

Amazing isn't it???

The debate proved Greenwald is not ready for the show, not ready to lead, and not ready to be the first female elected from Iowa.

People who owed the Garst family from years of contributions throughout the years stepped up and pressured leadership to put her in. Plain and simple.

Greenwald is the WRONG CHOICE at the WRONG TIME.

It is true

secondtonone — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 03:58:23 GMT

It is all too true.

He filled for a deference from the Vietnam war draft while attending NW Missouri State in 1967. He was granted his deference, so one could argue he didnt "dodge", but he was called to duty and was absent, in my book that is draft dodging

Hubler would get my vote, but like you said I do live in the fourth (hmmm... Stalk much Peggy?) because Steve King has

Been rated 17% by the NEA, indicating anti-public education votes. (Dec 2003)

Voted NO on tax incentives for energy production and conservation. (May 2008)

Voted NO on tax incentives for renewable energy. (Feb 2008)

Voted NO on investing in homegrown biofuel. (Aug 2007)

Voted NO on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC. (May 2007)

Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jan 2007)

Been Rated 0% by the CAF, indicating opposition to energy independence.

Been Rated 10% by the LCV, indicating anti-environment votes. (Dec 2003)

Voted NO on deterring foreign arms transfers to China. (Jul 2005)

Voted NO on assisting workers who lose jobs due to globalization. (Oct 2007)

Voted NO on protecting whistleblowers from employer recrimination. (Mar 2007)

Voted NO on requiring FISA warrants for wiretaps in US, but not abroad. (Mar 2008)

Voted NO on increasing minimum wage to $7.25. (Jan 2007)

Rated 0% by the AU, indicating opposition to church-state separation. (Dec 2006)

Rated 10% by the ARA, indicating an anti-senior voting record. (Dec 2003)

Those are a few reason's Hubler would have my vote. I would vote for Republican Dr. Miller-Meeks, also a veteran, before I would vote for King. You know, I would vote for George W Bush for my congressman before I voted for Steven King.

Fact over a blog?

secondtonone — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 03:12:54 GMT

Those are quotes FROM Miller-Meeks.

Someone talking to her in person, and things I am sure she is very proud of.

Miller-Meeks has refused to throw her friend, Jim Leach, under the bus and that has garnered my respect. That and her stance on many progressive causes including energy independance.

You took the wrong approach in trying to sell your candidate to readers of this blog, instead of attacking and underrating my comment, you could have just stated her wonderfully independant record.

As for being a passive country, I wouldnt know anything about that. I am a registered voter, a democratic activist and a veteran of the war in Iraq.

IDA Wall of Shame

Al — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 03:11:16 GMT

I am a member of the IDA. I must inject a little information here for the purposes of discussion. We would have included anyone from that race on the Wall of Shame. There was no candidate that we could have supported in that race. They all left us wanting. What do you do when it is a trio of unsatisfactory candidates?

Hmmmmm

linncountyliberal — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 03:03:05 GMT

Last time I checked, talking to someone in person is much more qualifying as a fact over a blog.

As for being a Democratic troll, I thought Democrats actually discussed ideas rather than talk about how much more of a passive country we can become.

I hope you have seen my new journal entry

secondtonone — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 02:52:49 GMT

It listed my "bases".
I know you are new here, but I just wanted to tell you that we have ways of dealing with Republicans posing as Democratic trolls. They are called "facts" you might want to look them up sometime

never mind

desmoinesdem — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 02:30:16 GMT

the commenter removed his or her zero rating on this comment.

thanks for removing the zero rating

desmoinesdem — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 02:29:26 GMT

We can disagree with each other without troll ratings.

also, secondtonone was talking about those on the right

desmoinesdem — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 02:28:07 GMT

wing of the GOP, not necessarily party insiders.

I went to that Iowa Defense blog link, and here is their explanation for putting Miller-Meeks on their "wall of shame":

The reason that Dr. Miller-Meeks is on the WoS is because she seems to be lying when she says that she is a Republican. And yet Dr. Miller-Meeks does not support the Republican Party Platform. A Democrat in Republican clothing.

There seem to be some hard feelings from the tough primary battle.

no doubt party insiders love her

desmoinesdem — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 02:24:53 GMT

Unfortunately for her, she's running in a Democratic district in a big Democratic year. She needs to appeal to more than the Republican base.

I don't think she's a bad person, I just think she has no chance to beat Loebsack.

Miller-Meeks Never Worked with Leach

linncountyliberal — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 01:27:46 GMT

I don't know what website secondtonone looked at, but this was never the case. She was never a huge supporter of Leach. I not sure what basis there is on how most Republicans don't like her.

Many party insiders from what I know love her. Grassley and his wife are in love with her.

secondtonone's comments are baseless.

30 seconds in the Bleeding Heartland

Peggy — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 00:53:44 GMT

told me who you were, secondtonone, and where you lived. You used to sign your name at the end of your posts.

My name really is Peggy, I really do live in the Fifth, you don't, and shame on you for saying that Steve King is a draft-dodging coward. You know that's not true.

Being a veteran? Is that all it takes to get your vote?

in our first-past-the-post electoral system

desmoinesdem — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 00:43:04 GMT

I see little benefit to voting for a third-party candidate. I think it makes more sense for thoughtful, independent-minded people to run in primaries.

Off the top of my head I can only think of one time I ever voted for a third-party candidate (Brian Depew, the Green Party candidate for Secretary of Agriculture in 2002). I have to be deeply, deeply dissatisfied with the major-party candidates to do that.

uprated for ratings abuse

desmoinesdem — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 00:38:17 GMT

Nothing in this comment merited a "zero" rating from linncountyliberal.

linncountyliberal, you are new here

desmoinesdem — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 00:37:21 GMT

so perhaps you do not understand the rating system.

Your "zero" rating of secondtonone's comment above is inappropriate. There is nothing "trollish" in his comment. If you disagree, you can simply post a reply disagreeing. A zero rating should be used only for comments that go way over the line.

I explained some guidelines for rating comments here:

http://www.bleedingheartland.c...

Excerpt:

"4" is for excellent. That means the comment has valuable insight, original information or analysis, and makes a strong contribution to dialogue at Bleeding Heartland.
"3" is for good. You might use this if you largely agree with someone's comment, but not with every point he or she makes.
"2" is for marginal. You might use this if you strongly disagree with the content of someone's comment. Also, a 2 rating could be a "shot across the bow" to warn someone that the line of argument in the comment didn't do much to advance dialogue here, or comes close to crossing a line.
"1" is for unproductive. If you not only strongly disagree with a comment, but feel that it detracts from the atmosphere here (for instance, because it is disrespectful or contains ad hominem attacks), you might give it a 1.
"0" is for troll. If more than one user gives a comment a zero, it will be hidden so that some Bleeding Heartland readers cannot see it.
Never use a zero rating to express disagreement with the argument someone is making. That is ratings abuse, and if you do it repeatedly, Bleeding Heartland administrators will either take away your ability to rate comments or potentially ban you from posting here.
A zero rating should be reserved for extreme circumstances, when the comment deserves to be hidden. For instance, if someone is impersonating someone else by choosing a different real person's name as a screen name (for instance, if I signed up as "Leonard Boswell" and posted ridiculous comments pretending to come from him).
Comments that use racist or otherwise bigoted language also would merit a zero.
Trying to expose the real names of Bleeding Heartland users who choose to write under screen names will not be tolerated either.
Slanderous, ad hominem attacks could get a zero rating too, but be careful not to accuse other posters of slander just because you disagree with their point of view or interpretation of events.