Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH
01.04.2009 1:31 pm

Open Comment, post-holiday, pre-session edition!

Special to the Post-Dispatch
  • Email this
  • Print this

It’s Sunday, Jan. 4. With the holidays behind us, the new session of the Missouri Legislature about to get underway, (and no Rams in the playoffs) there’s only one course of action for a cold winter weekend afternoon:

Spout off!

At Political Fix, we welcome all comers to participate in our weekly open-comment forum. What do we need to cover? What facts are we missing? What events, issues or candidates are on your personal radar?

Post early and often.

Just follow our rules: No profanity or obscene language. No personal attacks. No long-winded rants. And we ask that you focus on local or regional issues or perspectives.

Post at will!

19 comments

Comments are closed.

Actual conversation that took place in my house today;

Me: “An Obama appointee withdrew due to ongoing investigations of wrong doing.”

Wife: “which one?”

Me: “Good Point.”

Wife: “No, seriously, which one, Jarrett, Clinton, Napalitono, Richardson, Emmanuel, which one ISNT under investigation?”

— Si Vis Pacem Para Bellum
2:17 pm January 4th, 2009

You need to alter the rules of your open comment. Since DC Download has now joined Political Fix, this is no longer a local, regional issue blog. Of course it wasn’t that way when you were covering Obama’s rise to power was it?

Now regarding our elected President, where is the Post Dispatch on confirming his natural born citizen status? You can’t keep dodging this issue. If your organization has any journalistic integrity, you will uncover the facts about this issue instead of glossing over it.

I’ll wait, and keeping asking about your progress. Maybe one of your interns will be able to take on this task since you all are so busy covering other, more important stuff.

— Think|
2:31 pm January 4th, 2009

Si Vis Pacem Para Bellum: just too cute… had to clean the keyboard after reading.

Think|- if they don’t report it it doesn’t exist… that is where the P-D is on that subject.

The bigger question… at least for today is: is this the last Inauguration that the Post will be around to cover? State or federal.

— tsquare
3:20 pm January 4th, 2009

Can’t I just eat my waffle?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-DPJ063Iy8&eurl=

01-21-09, Chauncey Gardener will no longer be able to duck questions.

===

— BobZ.
5:42 pm January 4th, 2009

Well, I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’m just DYING to hear all the juicy stuff that table full of reporters dug up reading through 60,000 pages of Blunt’s emails.

— Nick Kasoff
5:59 pm January 4th, 2009

Great post Bob Z. The Political Fix staff loves their waffles too.

— Think|
6:15 pm January 4th, 2009

Watch for a credible candidate for a major Missouri state office that will be a PRO-LIFE DEMOCRAT. The Democrats have it right on so many issues except for abortion. A Pro-LIfe Democrat will be strongly embraced by the working class folks and the social conservatives.

This will be THE winning formula for successful Missouri politicians of the future.

— MO Son of a Local Prez
6:27 pm January 4th, 2009

60 Minutes story tonight: depraved indifference murder for drunk driving death: every state campaign I’m run, 3 times for state rep, harsher penalties for drunk driving has been part of my platform, but I dont agree with the murder prosecution for a drunk driving death, mainly because I dont think it meets the standards because the alcohol clouds the judgment of whether one should be driving, and mostly because I think it’s grandstanding without deterrent effect, tho I’ll presume the sincerity of the prosecutor. Some questions: .25 alcohol resulting in death the same prosecution as .09 (legal limit most places .08); I dont think so, so why the difference? And arrest for .25 shouldnt that then be severe penalty whether you actually killed someone or not? I think emphasis on severe penalties for drunk driving more deterrent than the sensational prosecutions for murder, and I think they’re wrong because not the requisite intent. Penalties for .09 probably should be different than for .25, but breathalizers like Illinois seem the answer. Maybe we should have them as standard equipment in all cars. More effect than seatbelts? and they’re required. Just saying.

— billhaas
7:33 pm January 4th, 2009

Biggest non news of the week:
Slay is one crooked slimebag…..

— chipdaniels
7:58 pm January 4th, 2009

CHALLENGE (with answer), CAN ANYONE PROVE THIS WRONG?:–

1. Constitution Article II requires USA President to be “natural born citizen”.

2. BHO’s website admits his dad was Kenyan/British, not American, citizen when BHO was born.

3. BHO is therefore not a “natural born citizen” (irrespective of Hawaiian birth or whether he may be a 14th Amendment “citizen” of USA) — confirmed in the Senate’s own McCain qualification resolution (that both parents must be citizens of USA) co-authored by BHO.

4. Supreme Court has already docketed two upcoming conferences, 1/9/09 and 1/16/09 — between dates Congress counts electoral votes (1/8/09) and Presidential inauguration (1/20/09) — to address Berg Case and fashion relief on BHO’s eligibility to be President.

5. Since the fact of BHO’s dad being Kenyan/British not in dispute, Supreme Court rules on Summary Judgment to enjoin BHO’s inauguration as President.

6. Therefore, BHO is not inaugurated as President.

7. Vice President Elect Biden is inaugurated Acting President under the 20th Amendment to serve until new President is determined — the procedure for which determination to be set out by Congress and/or the Supreme Court so long as in conformance with the Constitution.

ANSWER TO ABOVE CHALLENGE

IF, when counting the electoral votes, Congress WERE TO find by 1/8/09 that Obama — not being an Article II “natural born citizen” (father Kenyan/British, not American) — fails to qualify as President, Biden would become the full fledged President under 3 USC 19 (free to pick his own VP such as Hillary) AND THERE WOULD BE NO NEED FOR DEFERRAL TO THE SUPREME COURT to enjoin Obama’s inauguration relegating Biden to being merely Acting President under the 20th Amendment until a new President were duly determined.

(The preferable choice, at least for the Democrats, would seem obvious.)

— Ted
9:13 pm January 4th, 2009

Pages: [1] 2 » Show All