September 2019

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          

« Local talent, national audience | Main | Doomed to repeat it »

Apr 27, 2008


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Ged Maheux

Snarky Ed, I like! The sad part is that there are probably a very large chunk of North Carolinians to which this piece won't seem like satire. Some of them frequent this blog. To those people your piece will read more like an instruction manual rather than as you intended it, but hopefully they are in the vast minority.

Instead of close-ups, these people need to some distance from the whole affair to regain their grasp on what's important and for the sake of the rest of us. I'm reminded of that scene in Tootsie when the director says to the cameraman "I'd like to make her look a little more attractive. How far can you pull back?" To which the reply comes: "How you do feel about Cleveland?"


You are right, Ed. Character doesn't matter nor should anyone ever be held accountable for whom they associate with (except Republican's of course). It is far more important what a person says and what their plans are than whether you can actually trust them to carry out those plans.

On a side note, this morning on FOX News Sunday, Obama talked about raising taxes on "rich" people, and equated persons making over $102,000 per year with multi-billionaire Warren Buffet, and also defined the middle class as people making between $50-75k per year. So now we know that a person making more than $75k per year is really no different than Warren Buffet. Both are considered "rich" in Obama land.

Ged Maheux

Since Sam is so big on policies lately, here are some facts for him to chew on:

The median income for a single earner household in 2006 - $46,326

The median income for a *dual* earner household in 2006 - $67,348

A full 80% of the US population makes under $92,000 a year and would benefit from the middle class tax cuts Obama is proposing. How many people would suffer from raising capital gains back to Clinton era levels? Only the top 1.5% of Americans. I call that the good of the many outweighing the good of the few.

And yes, if you're making over $75,000 a year Sam, to many people that makes you rich. If not wealthy, then at the very least comfortable which is far more than the vast majority of people in this country have.

But hey at least we're talking about stuff that matters and not stuff like flag pins or if Obama is too good looking right?

Jim Rosenberg

I'm not being ironic when I say that some people choose leaders based not on policy but affinity. They'll look the other way on the specifics if they feel the person is basically "one of them." This cuts both ways: for politicians and lapel pins and preachers and pulpit rants. I say let a thousand flowers bloom. I don't like loud and pushy people and tend to hate them right away. My extended family loves them, and ignores everything they say just so they can enjoy the delicious 'tude. If you want to persuade someone, then I suggest focusing on why you favor your candidate - not why someone else should. Not that you were doing the opposite exactly, but you make a baseline assumption in favor of a certain rationality that isn't necessarily sacrosanct. There's a part of the "Is this guy one of us?" question - somewhere between a Klan and Unitarian meeting - that ought to be considered valid.


Ged, if you think a person making $90k has more in common with a multimillionaire than someone making $40k, that's your problem to sort out. FYI, Obama's tax cuts will only effect those making $75k or less, not the $92k "rich" person baseline you suggest.

Jim, I agree with your comments. I don't think Ed is totally off base, but I think is minimizing some important character issues. Whether Hillary is a compulsive liar is a matter to be considered when voting. Characterizing her Bosnia lie as an "exaggeration" is being way too generous.

Other than my disagreements with Obama's comments on policy, I thought he did very well this morning on FNS. He is certainly the most likeable person in the race.



"Characterizing her Bosnia lie as an "exaggeration" is being way too generous."

I meant "overstatement" , not "exaggeration".

Lying about getting shot at is not an "overstatement". Then lying about lying about the overstatement doesn't help matters. Hillary Clinton has had a problem with the truth for decades. She is unusually shameless liar.

Whether anyone could trust such a person as President regardless about what that person says should be of key concern to anyone. Those opposed to the war should pay particular attention to Mrs. Clinton's handling of the truth because she has flip-flopped and spun on that one issue several times.

Janice Moore Little

Dear Ed, I wrote you a couple of emails (which you amazingly answered) when you first mentioned your blog site. Since I haven't written but always read and learn from your articles. Today I had a conversation with my sister-in-law, Betty Little. We had both read today's column TWICE and neither of could decide exactly what you were saying. It was obvious you were being very facetious but at what point were you really speaking your own mind. I did"get" that you generally admire Gibson and Stephanopoulos. And since few believe every word spoken in our own houses of worship, you do not believe Obama wants to change us all to Muslims. Did I finally, on the THIRD reading get you right?

Ed Cone

I do not admire Gibson and Stephanopolous, at least in the context of their debate performances. I was urging voters to focus on issues that might have some bearing on the next eight years, not on fluff and hype-up controversies they focused on.

You got the part about Obama right, though.

Here's an email I got from a guy who didn't get it at all:

Dear Mr. Cone,

I began reading your article today re: Obama and stopped at the sentence "Like does Obama want to change us to Muslims..."

The kind of drivel you use to foment the masses may have appeal to many. You stimulate the part of the brain called the amygdala and limbic system, the parts we have in common with animals. One of the appealing features of Obama is his intelligent speech, almost like he believes people can use their neocortex, that part of our brain that separates us from animals.

Should Hillary win and we find she spends an unnecessary amount of time and energy fighting Republicans, I will say that Obama could've united us more with them.


Some folks need some stimulation in the parts of their brains that process satire and irony. Like one of the other commenters, I also read your column today twice--not a regular practice--because I thought it was funny as hell and really well written.

John Burns

Didn't Edwards already have his tonsorials taken out?

The comments to this entry are closed.