Comments on: Oh Snap Monday! Mongiardo’s Numbers Still MIA

By: brian smith

brian smith — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 00:30:50 +0000

Running for federal office to score some “almost-free” advertising? Isn’t that like posing for Hustler magazine to jump-start an acting career? I wouldn’t go to a doctor just because she’s thinking about running for office, and I wouldn’t vote to elect a Senator whose personal business concerns outweigh her desire for a career in public service.

And keep in mind all that cool schwag you scored from Newt was paid for by campaign and PAC donors who did not plan on playing sugar daddy to a small business.

And drop all the “Can’t we all hold civil tongues?!” crap. It’s been tried here before and roundly rejected.

By: Novena

Novena — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 18:31:57 +0000

“Macchiavelli Prowls Belknap”

Secrecy, vice and tyranny go hand-in-hand. One guesses that Mitch, JR and some other UofL honchos are well practiced in such usage. They cannot withstand openness and sunshine?
P.S. Is Cheney contributing to a study at the Center–perhaps on going beyond torture?

By: Larry West

Larry West — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:53:27 +0000

When watching the “delusional,” keep in mind that the publicity generated for these people and their companies far outweighs any expenses involved. I know that when I ran for Congress in 1992, I received tons of binders filled with stuff that could be reused, cassette tapes that could be taped over (including about 50 or so from Newt Gingrich), etc. Running for office is also good for business, as it is almost-free advertising. Did you know that Rand Paul was an opthomologist before he ran? I have heard of a lot of R* Paul supporters visiting him for eye work that wouldn’t have if he wasn’t thinking about running.
It also allows people to get their viewpoints across to the public, perhaps introducing new ideas that the major candidates will co-opt and claim as their idea all along.
We should be encouraging people to run for office, not discouraging them by calling them names or belittling them. John Yarmuth should be forced to explain his views on the issues, just as Jim Bunning should as well. Having all these candidates will hopefully force these men to do so.
(Now, if only the Republican Party had someone create an exploratory committee for metro mayor.)

By: Conservative

Conservative — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:48:09 +0000

Who are those no-names wanting to challenge Yarmuth?

That is the office that Cathy Bailey really needs to be running for. The Republicans need to find and push a strong, well-known, powerhouse candidate to beat Yarmuth. And it has to be done this time. If he wins again, he’ll be darn near impossible to root out of there and he’ll continue to vote against his district’s and his state’s best interests.

By: le gardien de but

le gardien de but — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:05:20 +0000

These people (UL hierarchy, Jerry, Mitch et al) love to spend other peoples money. It’s easy to fight in court when it’s no skin off your nose…..
It is imperative that these university foundations be transparent. Witness many schools where sunlight uncovered many abuses…

By: WouldaShouldaCoulda

WouldaShouldaCoulda — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:09:41 +0000

UL’s and Mitch’s steadfast attempt to keep his foundation donors’ names secret is more proof that this is another way for the well-to-do and corporations to grease ‘ol Mitch’s palms. If it wasn’t a big deal, they wouldn’t fight so hard.

By: Davi

Davi — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 14:21:46 +0000

Yes, the MJ thing was an incidental in the grand scheme of huge problems facing the country. Most people would have wisely sat it out, without any sign of objection. But we been captured by the media which is marketing the lives and deaths of celebrities instead of crucial news and information, and watching our Congress falling into lockstep is too much.

Rep. Yarmuth’s priorities are in good alignment, and perhaps Congress needed a reminder to avoid distraction and stick to the issues. To take Congress’ inattention to an extreme: we see how an inattentive Congress was so distracted that it did not see the huge economic meltdown coming when unethical and fraudlent investment practices were staring them in the face, and then again as Bush/Cheney lied their way into attacking Iraq.
Thank you Rep. Yarmouth for keeping your eye on the ball.

By: David Harpe

David Harpe — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 13:45:36 +0000

Walking out on the Michael Jackson thing was stupid. Yeah, it’s a stretch to say that it was an insult to all African Americans. But that’s not really the point.

Walking out on the MJ thing had no chance of stopping it, so his action was basically irrelevant. What’s more, it’s now a distraction…one that he didn’t need if he was really concerned about the energy debate.

Bad move, John. You’re smarter than that.

By: Earl

Earl — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 12:42:43 +0000

Looking up Jerry, I found $138.00 since 2005.
Bobby Petrino gave twice that much in one year.
It’s funny you see his huge head posters everywhere in this city, and his name on donor plaques everywhere – but no donations; he’s usually just giving away OUR money.