newsobserver.com projects - John Odom - Comments

Re: Quick Hits

ryanteaguebeckwith — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 14:40:13 -0400

Fixed. Thanks.

— RTB

Re: Quick Hits

mdougyr — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 14:38:37 -0400

Let me clarify my previous post. The link in the bullet point about Adams does work but it links to an article about the tax protest rally that happened yesterday.

Re: Quick Hits

mdougyr — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 14:36:30 -0400

The link about Merritt and Odom endorsing Adams doesn't work. Also, I think you might want to mention that Odom was the 2008 Republican nominee for North Carolina Insurance Commissioner. The general election race for the position was relatively close.

Re: Veterans back McCain at rally

scharrison — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 15:57:41 -0400

You're absolutely right, Isaac. Thanks for keeping me straight. :)

And thanks, Thomas! This movement has potential...

Mr Harrison

Isaac136 — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 15:08:29 -0400

The title IMPLIES. The title did not "infer" anything.

You INFER from the title that something was meant that was not necessarily meant.

Mr. Harrison, You've a deal

ThomasBrock — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 14:20:33 -0400

Consider the "Veterans against McCain" established.

Re: Veterans back McCain at rally

ryanteaguebeckwith — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 13:24:23 -0400

By necessity, headlines here are rather short, and Veterans for McCain back McCain would have been a tad redundant, but I can see your point.

— RTB

Re: Veterans back McCain at rally

scharrison — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:58:45 -0400

Okay, I have a solution for the title snafu, Ryan. I'm a veteran, and I oppose McCain. If I can get one more veteran reader to agree with me, you can do a piece called:

"Veterans Oppose McCain Under The Dome"

and balance would be returned to the Universe.

Re: Veterans back McCain at rally

scharrison — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:53:22 -0400

I don't mean to be picky Ryan, but the title of this blog is written in a way that infers a (monolithic) majority of veterans back McCain. As opposed to, "A Gathering of Veterans..." or "Veterans Group..."

And as for Capt. Kate:

"We've been in Korea for 55 years — and we won," she said.

Which Korea are you talking about? The Communist one or the one we've been defending from the Communists? Has the Heritage Foundation been supplying History books to West Point or something?

Re: Veterans back McCain at rally

urbinato — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 09:59:29 -0400

A great way to support the current troops would be to support a modern GI Bill. Instead, McBush opposed this updated version of the WWII era bill. But he wears a nice little American flag lapel pin - so I'm sure that's much more important to our armed forces than something like educational benefits so that they can support their families after they leave the military.

Vets groups begged McCain to support the GI Bill but he stood by Bush and opposed it. "Support the troops" is more than a slogan Mr MCcain.
http://www.military.com/news/article/vets-to-mccain-back-new-gi-bill.html

Not all veterans back McCain

ThomasBrock — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 20:18:38 -0400

And that includes some pretty senior military leaders.

And me.

Re: Bringing RC Cola back to campaigns

faulknerspike — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 15:39:07 -0400

I agree, I am so tired of these whiners as well. I bet Meg Scott Phipps, Jim Black, Michael Decker, and even Thomas Wright are also tired of hearing people say "lets take money out of politics". To think, had they only went to several more bbqs, and smiled nice and wide, maybe they would not be in jail, on their way to jail, or recently out of jail.

Re: Bringing RC Cola back to campaigns

liam — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 13:36:59 -0400

I'm so tired of these whiners.

Yes, you have to raise money to run a real campaign. No, you can't get elected just eating bbq and smiling nice and wide. And you never could. When exactly were these good ol days of politicking when money wasn't a big deal?

Re: Long not running for re-election

ymorris2 — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 17:05:32 -0500

I agree. Why not use "unsuccessful" instead of "failed"? "Failed", though technically accurate, seems a little subjective for a news reporter. Even "lost" sounds better and more objective than "failed." By the way, Wayne Goodwin ran a terrific campaign in 2004, and had a fantastic campaign team. He campaigned in every county (unlike his opponent), had bipartisan support, and outfundraised his opponent, who happened to be the only statewide incumbent Republican at the time. But for the less-than-expected percentages for the Kerry-Edwards presidential campaign in NC, then Goodwin and several of the down-ballot Council of State races would have reversed in 2004 and been in the Democratic column.

Re: Long not running for re-election

meschreiner — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 16:15:15 -0500

We can only guess who and how many would have filed to run if Long had made this announcement in the clear and before the start of the filing season instead in its final hours.