Comments on: In Kentucky, more of the same

By: does anyone care?

does anyone care? — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 17:47:06 +0000

The November 2 issue of The Floyd County Times…” McConnell says in Martin County, ‘Hold down the votes in Floyd and Pike and run up the score in Johnson and Martin’.”

How can this be done legally?

By: Sergeant

Sergeant — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 15:48:59 +0000

Kentuckians don’t seem to get it. You can’t keep sending the same old political hacks to Washington and Frankfort if you expect any progress. That goes for BOTH parties.

McConnell and Bunning…..geesh! Good ol boys still living in the 1970s.

David Williams, Jody Richards, Damron, Stumbo; the list of self-serving, clueless buffoons in Frankfort is endless.

Why does Kentucky have such a backwards image with the rest of the world? A look at our politics gives a clue, dontcha think?

The old way of doing things doesn’t work, it’s a proven fact. If we keep going in the direction we’ve been heading we will surely be lost.

Why not try something different, Kentucky?

By: phyre

phyre — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 05:22:04 +0000

Kentucky voting for Mc Connell, the semi-senile Bunning & those who still voted for the corupt Ernie Fletcher reflects Ky. being in the bottom 10% in education nationally.

By: larrykeeling

larrykeeling — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 14:37:57 +0000

McCain represented a continuation of much of the Bush agenda, particularly in regard to Iraq and making the tax cuts for the rich permanent. He would not have been an agent for change.

As for McConnell, we’ll see if his colleagues remain comfortable with his leadership.

ldk

By: Joe

Joe — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 12:39:56 +0000

I am not quite sure how you can claim that Kentuckians voted for more of the same. This seems like more mindless echoing of the Obama campaign’s talking points. Senator John McCain was not President Bush. So it seems to me that any vote for either candidate was a vote for change, since neither candidate was the incumbent. So by your own words, “the change that took place was at the top,” either candidate would have been change.

By: Bob

Bob — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 12:38:05 +0000

Congratulations to our friend Mitch on his victory. I’m wondering, however, if the GOP should really want him to stay on as minority leader.
In 1998, when he was chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the party lost two sitting senators. The next cycle, in 2000 with Mitch still at the helm, the party had a net loss of four seats. This year, in the first election of his leadership, the GOP lost 5 or 6 seats. Mitch himself trailed the national ticket by five points, running against a seriously flawed, albeit deep-pocketed, opponent.
Given that the nation has demanded change, perhaps the Republicans should consider one.

By: larrykeeling

larrykeeling — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 10:35:27 +0000

The change that occurred nationally was at the top - in the White House.

ldk

By: Patrick (I)

Patrick (I) — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 10:31:15 +0000

Democrats have controlled Congress for the past 2 years. We should all keep in mind that Democrats keeping control of Congress is not change, but more of the same.