Open Thread (9/2/2008)

Posted September 2nd, 2008 at 08:10 AM by IlliniPundit
in

Tuesday, September 2, 2008.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
On September 2nd, 2008 at 09:37 AM, Ralph Langenheim (not verified) said:

"No pleasure is worth giving up for the sake of two more years in a geriatric home."  Kinglsy

Amis  --- Ralph Langenheim

Oil Man's picture
On September 2nd, 2008 at 09:58 AM, Oil Man said:

""Presidential ambition is a disease that can only be cured by embalming fluid." --- Senator John McCain

On September 2nd, 2008 at 10:45 AM, Nidan said:

So, as the dangerous, liberal blog TalkingPointsMemo has reported, Sarah Palin's 17-yr old daughter is pregnant. She has links to the Alaska Independence Party, which wants to secede from the Union (the one she wants to be the VP of). Palin has hired more lawyers for her Troopergate defense. She once backed the Bridge to Nowhere. Andrea Mitchell of MSNBC has reported that republican lawyers are up in Alaska vetting Palin. Who wants to wager that Palin will make it through the week?

On September 2nd, 2008 at 11:56 AM, Champaign Dweller said:

I wouldn't consider Andrea Mitchell to be much of an unbiased source.

cheesy poofs's picture
On September 2nd, 2008 at 12:45 PM, cheesy poofs said:

Two voices of reason (finally) on the Urbana council, from the NG...

"I think we need to be pretty selective and not wield a broad stake over these things and not turn developers off," she said.

Heather Stevenson, R-Ward 6, said she thinks "if you own a property, you ought to be able to do with it what you want."

"If it's so historic and she (Matkovszki) wants to take care of it, let her buy it," Stevenson said.

On September 2nd, 2008 at 12:47 PM, Nidan said:

What do you consider to be a credible source?

News.google.com currently lists more than 1,000 articles under "vetting Palin." Andrea Mitchell is not the only reporter on the case. It's not hard to find these reporters and their articles with a simple web search.

The Palin misstep is costing McCain dearly. He should have stuck with the tried-and-true old, rich, cranky white guy approach. It's the Republican way.

redstatewannabe's picture
On September 2nd, 2008 at 12:51 PM, redstatewannabe said:

He should have stuck with the tried-and-true old, rich, cranky white guy approach. It's the Republican way.

which is exactly why he didn't.

McCain wasn't trying to impress Obama voters with his selection - he was trying to impress conservatives, and to give Hillary supporters a moment of pause when they go into the booth. 

On September 2nd, 2008 at 05:06 PM, Anonymous (not verified) said:

And instead, he ended up giving us all a good laugh.

On September 2nd, 2008 at 05:18 PM, Run4cvrlib said:

The Palin misstep is costing McCain dearly. He should have stuck with the tried-and-true old, rich, cranky white guy approach. It's the Republican way.--Yeah like Obama did, someone with experience like McCain so the democratic ticket would have some.

Still have not seen the mistake in picking Palin though I guess the all the time it will take in counting the increase in fund raising?

On September 2nd, 2008 at 10:54 PM, Nidan said:

Palin's husband Todd was a registered member of the Alaska Independence Party. I can barely imagine the bloviation that would emanate from Fox News if Michelle Obama was a member of an organization that argued for the secession of Illinois from the Union. In other words, why does Todd Palin hate America?

On September 2nd, 2008 at 10:56 PM, Warrior said:

Fred and Joe just rocked the house.  Tomorrow we'll finally get to see why McCain picked Sarah.

On September 3rd, 2008 at 12:22 AM, Run4cvrlib said:

Watching the Obama fans on MSNBC Chris Mathews and Olbermann and talk about Thompson clearing his throat and then making fun of people great News coverage.

On September 3rd, 2008 at 10:36 AM, wayward said:

Two voices of reason (finally) on the Urbana council, from the NG...

"I think we need to be pretty selective and not wield a broad stake over these things and not turn developers off," she said.

Heather Stevenson, R-Ward 6, said she thinks "if you own a property, you ought to be able to do with it what you want."

"If it's so historic and she (Matkovszki) wants to take care of it, let her buy it," Stevenson said.

I can see both sides, I guess.  It'd be unfortunate to see nice old houses in Urbana replaced with ugly student apartment buildings, but pulling the rug out from under developers after they've bought properties could also make people less willing to invest here.  So I'd agree with Lynne Barnes, but wouldn't go so far as to say property owners should be able to do whatever they want.  (Anybody else ever gotten to live down the street from a house with tall weeds and garbage in the yard?)

cheesy poofs's picture
On September 3rd, 2008 at 01:37 PM, cheesy poofs said:

(Anybody else ever gotten to live down the street from a house with tall weeds and garbage in the yard?)

I would argue that handcuffing developers for the purpose of "Ugly Apartments? Not In My Yard!" would be a cause of blighted properties, not a deterant.  Besides, there are ways of dealing with blight without taking an individual's property rights away.  Should property owners be able to do whatever they want?  Probably not.  That is why arson is a crime and why zoning ordinances are enacted, but to abuse a preservation ordinance just to control what is built down the street from your house against the property owner's wishes is just that, abuse.  Sometimes an old house is just an old house, and just because the owner of the first general store in Urbana had a sister who had a cousin by marriage who happened to build a house, it doesn't justify handcuffing a property owner.  Especially when preservationists deem this particular house as not historically significant.

[steps down off soap box]