newsobserver.com projects - most read - Comments

Re: Most Read: Meta edition

Isaac136 — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 14:53:47 -0400

Makes a danged difference there RTB!
(But I couldn't help thinking of Byrd, not to mention other early adherents to the party)

I agree with the giggling comment

James_Protzman — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 14:06:26 -0400

The phrase "lipstick on a pig" comes to mind.

Re: Most Read: Meta edition

ryanteaguebeckwith — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 12:57:47 -0400

To be clear, Ralph Stanley played a Klansman in "O Brother, Where Art Thou." (He was the one singing "O Death" as he lifted the hood up.)

— RTB

Re: Most Read: Meta edition

Isaac136 — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 12:51:17 -0400

Hey! That was ME wanting to swear more, wasn't it?

Lookit, we Democrats aren't going to get sore about the fact that someone was ONCE a Klansman. What we stand for today says CHANGE is possible.

It's the current Klansmen, or the close-enough current version (Bob Barr) we'd take issue with.

And ya ain't got no bidness giggling about this DVD distribution, RTB. It's shameful and ya know it.

Re: Most read: Shouldering the burden

nc4me — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 13:40:24 -0400

RE: #2 - America's hardest working governor deserves some time off. LOL

Re: National Targeting of Candidates

Proctor — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 01:44:00 -0400

Dome and its fellow political column/blog editors definitely like to stress the importance of campaign finance. But I wonder how much attention has been given to the specific practice of national party spending against a particular candidate in North Carolina or some other state?

Can we get a comparative profile of how much Democratic or Republican national party campaign organizations spend in direct campaigns to defeat particular candidates--as is being discussed with respect to the Democrats' effort against Sen. Dole--as opposed to national party contributions to particular candidates it favors in which cases the candidates are free to use the financial contributions for whatever purpose they chooses?

I.e., shouldn't analysts of campaign spending differentiate between national party contributions to state and local political campaigns on the one hand and direct spending to defeat a particular candidate on the other? If either the Democratic or the Republican Party spends several million dollars specifically to run negative advertising about a candidate of the other party and supports organizational efforts to defeat that candidate rather than simply making campaign contributions to the campaigns of candidates whom its supports, then doesn't that suggest that the national party organizations are presuming that the targeted state or local candidates should represent them as national organizations rather than the people of their states or districts?

It makes you wonder, if a Democratic Party group wanted to spend several million dollars in a direct effort to defeat a Republican candidate in North Carolina, for example, then why wouldn't they simply make a contribution in that same amount to the campaign of the Democratic candidate whose candidacy for the office in question they wish to support?

David McKnight

Re: Most Read: Vive la France!

FFC1304 — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 22:59:33 -0400

The bully law would have been UNconstitutional the way it was written, but
good try RyanTB...strive to be smarter.

Re: Most Read: Take it, Easley

FFC1304 — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 19:56:58 -0400

Like Ive posted before, I dont understand WHY state employees are not convulsing with rage over this BS...WHY are they not organizing to say enough is enough?