World endorses George Bush then John Sullivan

[Hometown]

Dear Tulsa World,

Your endorsement today of John Sullivan has made Hometown very unhappy.  You had been doing so well.  And then your editorial board makes this rather serious mistake.  Oh, I know you are only human but your monopoly here in Tulsa increases your responsibility to your readers. And today you failed us by endorsing a McCarthy-like careerist.

I want to remind Tulsans that your endorsements have been fatally flawed before, like your October 10, 2004 glowing endorsement of George W. Bush for president.  

In that unfortunate endorsement the Tulsa World lauded Bush.  You site the War in Iraq and you state that Bush has managed it well.

If there is still anyone out there dense enough to think that Bush has managed Iraq well, then they will probably be in complete agreement with you about John Sullivan.

[aoxamaxoa]

quote:Originally posted by Hometown

Dear Tulsa World,

Your endorsement today of John Sullivan has made Hometown very unhappy.  You had been doing so well.  And then your editorial board makes this rather serious mistake.  Oh, I know you are only human but your monopoly here in Tulsa increases your responsibility to your readers. And today you failed us by endorsing a McCarthy-like careerist.

I want to remind Tulsans that your endorsements have been fatally flawed before, like your October 10, 2004 glowing endorsement of George W. Bush for president.  

In that unfortunate endorsement the Tulsa World lauded Bush.  You site the War in Iraq and you state that Bush has managed it well.

If there is still anyone out there dense enough to think that Bush has managed Iraq well, then they will probably be in complete agreement with you about John Sullivan.

Snap!

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by Hometown

Dear Tulsa World,

Your endorsement today of John Sullivan has made Hometown very unhappy.  You had been doing so well.  And then your editorial board makes this rather serious mistake.  Oh, I know you are only human but your monopoly here in Tulsa increases your responsibility to your readers. And today you failed us by endorsing a McCarthy-like careerist.

I want to remind Tulsans that your endorsements have been fatally flawed before, like your October 10, 2004 glowing endorsement of George W. Bush for president.  

In that unfortunate endorsement the Tulsa World lauded Bush.  You site the War in Iraq and you state that Bush has managed it well.

If there is still anyone out there dense enough to think that Bush has managed Iraq well, then they will probably be in complete agreement with you about John Sullivan.

Did you even read the endorsement, or did you get stuck after the headline?

They said they admired him because he doesn't turn his back on, nor a deaf ear to his critics.  The writer pointed out that Sullivan has had philosophical differences with the World in the past, but is willing to listen.  They also like that he's managed to get more staffers for the INS field office in OKC. (we now have 12 instead of 4 which is still just sticking a finger in the dike).

At least Sullivan appears more open-minded than some of you guys on the board who bash Republicans for the sake of bashing Republicans and forsaking their ideas.

Can we do better than Sullivan? likely so.  I haven't seen another entrant into this race who looks like they'd be any better.  Instead of sniping about the editorial pages, why don't you get involved in the local Democratic party and help recruit quality opponents?

[Hometown]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by Hometown

Dear Tulsa World,

Your endorsement today of John Sullivan has made Hometown very unhappy.  You had been doing so well.  And then your editorial board makes this rather serious mistake.  Oh, I know you are only human but your monopoly here in Tulsa increases your responsibility to your readers. And today you failed us by endorsing a McCarthy-like careerist.

I want to remind Tulsans that your endorsements have been fatally flawed before, like your October 10, 2004 glowing endorsement of George W. Bush for president.  

In that unfortunate endorsement the Tulsa World lauded Bush.  You site the War in Iraq and you state that Bush has managed it well.

If there is still anyone out there dense enough to think that Bush has managed Iraq well, then they will probably be in complete agreement with you about John Sullivan.

Did you even read the endorsement, or did you get stuck after the headline?

They said they admired him because he doesn't turn his back on, nor a deaf ear to his critics.  The writer pointed out that Sullivan has had philosophical differences with the World in the past, but is willing to listen.  They also like that he's managed to get more staffers for the INS field office in OKC. (we now have 12 instead of 4 which is still just sticking a finger in the dike).

At least Sullivan appears more open-minded than some of you guys on the board who bash Republicans for the sake of bashing Republicans and forsaking their ideas.

Can we do better than Sullivan? likely so.  I haven't seen another entrant into this race who looks like they'd be any better.  Instead of sniping about the editorial pages, why don't you get involved in the local Democratic party and help recruit quality opponents?

That must be born in '71.  Bless your heart.  If you had followed my posts on this forum you would know that I have a long list of specific arguments with your party's mismanagment of the United States.  But even in your party there is bad and worse.  Sullivan is at the bottom of the worst category.

Indeed the Tulsa World blasted Sullivan in a recent editorial for scaring elderly residents of an old folks home with unfounded stories about terrorists crossing the border.  I can't explain their flip flop.

Both Bush and Sullivan represent a far right radical element in your party.  If you were old enough you would remember when my party lost touch with the mainstream of American life back at the height of the Liberal era.  We corrected our course and recaptured the center.  

Now it's up to you Republicans to rid your party of the radicals that are taking all of you, and all of us, down with them.

And you better get on the ball because things don't look so great out there.

The obvious alternative to Sullivan is his opponent Alan Gentges.

[Bledsoe]

My best guess on this issue......

TO:  Tulsa World Editoral Board
From:  Robert (Bobbie) Lorton, III, publisher

"You boys and girls may endorce candidates unless I say I want to endorce a candidate."

[Steve]

quote:Originally posted by Hometown

Dear Tulsa World,

Your endorsement today of John Sullivan has made Hometown very unhappy.  You had been doing so well.  And then your editorial board makes this rather serious mistake.  Oh, I know you are only human but your monopoly here in Tulsa increases your responsibility to your readers. And today you failed us by endorsing a McCarthy-like careerist.

I want to remind Tulsans that your endorsements have been fatally flawed before, like your October 10, 2004 glowing endorsement of George W. Bush for president.  

In that unfortunate endorsement the Tulsa World lauded Bush.  You site the War in Iraq and you state that Bush has managed it well.

If there is still anyone out there dense enough to think that Bush has managed Iraq well, then they will probably be in complete agreement with you about John Sullivan.

Hi Hometown, I agree with you about the World's endorsement of Sullivan.  A pity, for sure.

I used to subscribe to the Tulsa Tribune up until they folded in the early 1990s.  I then switched to the World, because I had no choice for a daily paper.  I am of a generation that would be lost without the daily paper in hand.  To me, there is just something comforting about the daily newspaper in hand, especially for local news, the TV and internet be damned.  I often disagree with the World's editorial stances, but I don't think they have near the influence on the voting population today that newspapers used to have.  Be that as it may, I agree with your opinion.

[Cubs]

Vote Sullivan .... I already did

[AVERAGE JOE]

quote:Originally posted by Cubs

Vote Sullivan .... I already did

That's all the endorsement I need to vote for the other candidate...

I went to the same school with Sullivan. I wouldn't vote him dogcatcher.

[Conan71]

'Scuse me, Hometown, your assumption as to my age is wrong, I was born in 1965, and I'm pretty well-versed in the political history of our country.  Your condescending comments like "Bless your heart" are not necessary.

Your view of the political parties is very myopic.  You bought the whole "Republicans are just now starting to come around to the black man" schtick hook, line, and sinker so I'd guess you are easy prey for the rest of their talking points.  Saying that Bush and Sullivan are part of a radical far right element, only flies in the minds of very far-left thinking people who take their party's propaganda as pure gospel.  Larger government and spending tax money like drunken sailors is hardly traditional radical right thinking.  

Just so you don't think I'm a party-line Republican- I don't believe our government should legislate morality.  I'm pro-choice (it's pretty much a dead issue anyhow), I don't believe the government should meddle in civil union issues- hetero, gay, or ?, I don't believe the gov't should fund "faith-based" initiatives, I believe the government needs to quit talking about immigration and actually do something about it... need I go on?

You offer no other support for your argument of Sullivan being the "bottom of the worst category" other than some speech he made at a nursing home that supposedly scared the bejeezus out of some residents.  Please provide more instances and I will gladly consider your points.  Tell me what Genteges stands for that is vastly different than Sullivan and at least I'll listen with an open mind.  I just don't think the Democrats have brought a worthy opponent to the table this year.  I've heard plenty about what the Republicans are doing wrong and very little of what Democrats will actually do to improve the country- it's typical.

Is Sullivan always right?  No.  He speaks his mind and isn't afraid to express an opinion that goes against the leadership from time-to-time.  Sure, he makes party-line votes just like Democrats do.  He does represent the values of the majority of his constituency, which is what he is paid to do.  In case you haven't noticed, the voting majority in this area is very conservative.  If you don't like living in such a conservative congressional district there are plenty more liberal places to live.

He's also been willing to break ranks with his GOP bretheren on the issues of immigration, which is an important issue to me and his stance reflects my own.

[Hometown]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

'Scuse me, Hometown, your assumption as to my age is wrong, I was born in 1965, and I'm pretty well-versed in the political history of our country.  Your condescending comments like "Bless your heart" are not necessary.

Your view of the political parties is very myopic.  You bought the whole "Republicans are just now starting to come around to the black man" schtick hook, line, and sinker so I'd guess you are easy prey for the rest of their talking points.  Saying that Bush and Sullivan are part of a radical far right element, only flies in the minds of very far-left thinking people who take their party's propaganda as pure gospel.  Larger government and spending tax money like drunken sailors is hardly traditional radical right thinking.  

Just so you don't think I'm a party-line Republican- I don't believe our government should legislate morality.  I'm pro-choice (it's pretty much a dead issue anyhow), I don't believe the government should meddle in civil union issues- hetero, gay, or ?, I don't believe the gov't should fund "faith-based" initiatives, I believe the government needs to quit talking about immigration and actually do something about it... need I go on?

You offer no other support for your argument of Sullivan being the "bottom of the worst category" other than some speech he made at a nursing home that supposedly scared the bejeezus out of some residents.  Please provide more instances and I will gladly consider your points.  Tell me what Genteges stands for that is vastly different than Sullivan and at least I'll listen with an open mind.  I just don't think the Democrats have brought a worthy opponent to the table this year.  I've heard plenty about what the Republicans are doing wrong and very little of what Democrats will actually do to improve the country- it's typical.

Is Sullivan always right?  No.  He speaks his mind and isn't afraid to express an opinion that goes against the leadership from time-to-time.  Sure, he makes party-line votes just like Democrats do.  He does represent the values of the majority of his constituency, which is what he is paid to do.  In case you haven't noticed, the voting majority in this area is very conservative.  If you don't like living in such a conservative congressional district there are plenty more liberal places to live.

He's also been willing to break ranks with his GOP bretheren on the issues of immigration, which is an important issue to me and his stance reflects my own.

I'm a life long Democrat and I AM TULSA TO THE BONE.

This is my hometown.  It was my grandparents' and my parents' home.  Tulsa made me who I am.  Take a look around you.  Tulsa is much more diverse that you seem to realize.

What would a Democrat do?  Can you remember anything beyond the last twenty-four hours?  Peace, prosperity, consensus, bipartisan legislation, sanity.

[iplaw]

Take off the rose-colored glasses and join us all back in reality whenever you're ready.

[Hometown]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

Take off the rose-colored glasses and join us all back in reality whenever you're ready.

Rose colored glasses?  Iplaw, you had to be a loser not to make a wad of money under Clinton – especially in your business.

THE GOOD NEWS IS THAT ALAN GENTGES STANDS A REAL CHANCE OF WINNING.

Recent polling found that 56% of the voters in District 1 are dissatisfied with the direction of the country.  And a Republican businessman who pulled 25% of the GOP vote in the ’04 primary is running as an independent and will split the GOP vote.

But I admit if you still love Bush and what he’s doing to us, you probably love Sullivan.

Bush = Sullivan = bad news for Oklahoma

[iplaw]

quote:
Iplaw, you had to be a loser not to make a wad of money under Clinton – especially in your business.

I make money regardless of who is in office...

BTW, this Bush ecomony is stonger than at any time during the Clinton administration.

*  Record low unemployment. (Lower than the combined average of the last 30 years)
*  Record low interest rates.
*  Record high DOW Jones average.
*  Record high tax revenue.
*  GDP has increased by 3.5 percent, above historical rate of growth.

[rwarn17588]

I don't think Sullivan makes any difference. I don't like him, but I don't see anything from the Democratic challenger that makes me want to vote for him. (I did like the fact he busted Sullivan's chops about his specious claims on the Mexican border.)

Unless the incumbent is stupid or incompetent, just being on the other party isn't enough for me to vote for you. You've gotta bring something to the table.

Example: I think Jim Webb, who's running for Senate in Virginia against incumbent George Allen, is much better-qualified for the job. That's why Allen is scared of him.

[Hometown]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

I don't think Sullivan makes any difference. I don't like him, but I don't see anything from the Democratic challenger that makes me want to vote for him. (I did like the fact he busted Sullivan's chops about his specious claims on the Mexican border.)

Unless the incumbent is stupid or incompetent, just being on the other party isn't enough for me to vote for you. You've gotta bring something to the table.

Example: I think Jim Webb, who's running for Senate in Virginia against incumbent George Allen, is much better-qualified for the job. That's why Allen is scared of him.

I like Alan Gentges, but in your case rwarn17588, what about voting for Gentges for the larger goal of bringing bipartisanship back to the Congress?