nyt im glad its extensive. but if they actually go and find every post by members on message boards, there are bound to be numerous things that maybe 'embarrassing'.
LOL - I should apply to put government into further gridlock as they research my ....uh...numerous posts. DD
I hope people who have hopes of high political office know better than to post on the internet, and especially some place like the D&D.
Not to be picking on you, JV, but I find it sad that everyone seems to agree that expressing one's opinion is a career-limiting move for a politician. I mean, I find it a travesty of sorts - I want to know a candidate's opinions.
He was not forced to resign for posting in the D&D though. It was for his numerous sexual liasons with the wives of countless New Mexico state officials.
i think they are afraid of the political ramifications if those opinions get out. obviously if any of us had a few thousand comments on a message board, there would be many opinions that perhaps aren't as politically correct.
I think it ridiculous to assume that a politician agrees with you on 100% of all issues. I'd rather know a bit more of the truth, than erroneously assume he/she conforms to some pre-determined ideology. My two cents.
i fully concur. but it creates significant problems during senate confirmation. and since im sure the RNC or some company would pay firms tons of money to do opp research on every appointment of any significance, funds permitting, i understand why obama wants to nip this. that being said, i completely hate it.
I'd welcome it too, but who takes the time to read into an allegation's sources or dive into nuance? This sounds cynical, but some voters willingly want to hear less about their hero given the ease in tearing him down. And for the most part, negative campaigning still works.
It has the potential to FORCE complete adherance, from the moment of political aspiration, to a particular pre-existing "box" (from the perspective of public comments). That's more anti-intellectual than voting in a legitimate idiot. Then again, I can understand the logic that this eliminates potential publicity nightmares if you choose someone who once spoke at a secessionist rally or something.
Yes, it's sad. But, it's true. Things that are harmless in everyday life are turned sinister by propagandists (professional and amateur) when the issue becomes partisan. Do you think Obama knew what a political gamble he was taking when he stepped into an education professor's living room?
I heard Hannity complaining (boss's car) that Obama wouldn't qualify for his own vetting. Nobody ever said any entry on the form would 'Disqualify' you; they just want to know as much as you are willing to admit to. That's just good lawyering.
Let's be real... anyone who has thousands of posts on a BBall BBS probably isn't going to end up in the President's Cabinet. On the other hand, I have nothing to be ashamed about. I fully stand by my opinions as expressed here on soccer (useless sport), chili (no beans), and Hakeem Olajuwon (best center ever). I will not be crucified on a cross of chili!
This is a leftover wingnut talking point... during the election, these losers kept saying Obama would not qualify for a security clearance because of his associations. Totally absurd.
