Sound Off for Oct. 26, 2008
Reader: You have any word on this? Probably as important as the Mayor's baseball boondoggle. Love to read the latest on it.
— Art Carlock
Posted by jkappel Oct. 23, 2008
I am quite a bit upset that this story has not received much main stream media attention. Apparently Obama's citizenship has been questioned by a lawsuit against him in Pennsylvania (Berg vs. Obama, Civil Action No. 08-cv-4083) filed on August 21st, 2008.
This lawsuit makes allegations that Sen. Obama may not be qualified to run for president based on the qualifications put forth by the U.S. Constitution. Sen. Obama was served notice that he was to provide documents proving his qualification for review by the Judge. He has not produced any documents, and is instead trying to dismiss the case via other legal actions. Why would Sen. Obama not produce his documents proving his citizenship? Isn't that a requirement for all candidates?
This seems to be more than just some low-ball attempt to discredit the senator, but rather is a true concern about whether he meets the constitutional requirements to become president. Apparently Fox news has covered the story in Toledo Ohio from their local news desk there, but there has been little other coverage.
Don't you all agree that if someone running for president is being sued over his qualifications we should all be made aware of the details? What could be more important news than this? Why have our local news sources not picked up on this? We should demand accountability for this outrage.
Jenner: The judge dismissed the case Friday, according to The Associated Press.
It's true we haven't covered this suit. We also didn't cover a similar lawsuit filed against John McCain challenging his citizenship.
Each week, we receive thousands of wire stories, hundreds of them about the presidential campaigns right now. On Friday alone, our server received 284 stories mentioning McCain; 273 mentioned Obama.
Each day, our editors sift through these stories and make thoughtful decisions about what to print and what to leave out.
Although this lawsuit got a lot of steam on the Internet, I offer no apologies for not covering it.
••
Reader: In response to your endorsements, there seems to be absolutely NO consistent understanding — political or otherwise behind some of them as to compare them to past ones. You could tell in the past 20 years by the editorials' point of view somewhat as to how the endorsements would be. Not this year! This is quite a sad commentary on The Californian. I regret that this has come to our community — dumbing down leadership, that is.
People would be outraged if someone said they would not vote for a person because of their race or sex. However, it seems acceptable for some to qualify a person because of their race or sex. Diversity for the sake of diversity is illogical and wrong.
If it is wrong to deny a position because of race or sex, isn't it wrong to place a person in office because of it? In a list of vital qualifications for an effective leader, diversity does not top the list.
What about integrity, experience, ambition, education, communication skills? If a person has these and offers diversity — great. However, do not sacrifice the important qualifications just for the sake of having diversification.
Vote Smart.
— Rosalyn E. Strode
Editorial Page Editor Dianne Hardisty responds: I have no idea what you're referring to. No endorsements were made — implied or otherwise — on the basis of achieving diversity.
Endorsements were made on the basis of candidates' qualifications. Those qualifications were cited in the published editorials.
As in the past several elections, The Californian'srecommendations were made with no adherence to rigid ideological litmus tests. Both Democrats and Republicans have been endorsed.
Reader: I'm canceling my paper because I don't believe you guys should be recommending anybody to vote for or any of the propositions. Therefore, I no longer need the paper.
Thank you.
Bye, bye.
— Vera Sotello
Reader: I have no idea about the size or makeup of the editorial board that led to the McCain endorsement. Is it a board of eleven, or twenty-five? Who knows? The endorsing editorial said it was proud of their 2000 endorsement.
It is not 2000. McCain is not the politician they endorsed in 2000. Early on in this Presidential race, McCain claimed "Country First." Then he promptly added Sarah Palin to the ticket. I challenge the editorial board that when they see their spouse, or secretary, or co-worker, or country club buddy that their endorsement put our country first before they voted. I challenge The Bakersfield Californianto reveal individually the board's vote for this endorsement. This is similar to the request by GOP/GNC demanding that the Obama campaign reveal its less than $200 contributions.
I can't believe that the McCain campaign rhetoric is bringing the country together as The Californian's endorsement subscribes it will.
In the words of Edward R. Murrow, Good Night, and Good Luck.
— Philip Burch
Dianne Hardisty responds: The names of editorial board members appear in a box labeled "editorial board" at the top right corner of the Opinion page every day above the editorials.
These board members discuss election recommendations, usually after meeting with candidates and initiative campaign representatives.
They also confer with five community advisers to the editorial board, who also sit in on the candidate and initiative meetings.
Endorsements are decided generally by consensus — rather than editorial board members casting "ballots."
Candidate qualification and positions are debated, with a decision regarding the newspaper's recommendation generally reached by consensus.
One of the Opinion section's writers explains the decision in an editorial.
•••
Reader: It's just getting so darn hard to read your paper, particularly for an old man. The printing is blurred. It was really bad when you first made the switch over to the new size. Then it got a little bit better, but you know it's a long ways from being like it used to be.
I know it's hard to keep the cost down, but it sure is hard on someone to read your paper. Anyway, that's my gripe. I've been a participant with your paper for a long, long time.
Thanks a lot.
— Mr. Amos
Jenner: We are concerned with the quality of our printing, and the people who run the presses are focused on eliminating the blurring, and have made modifications to our press to address it.
Thanks for reading us over the years. We do appreciate your business, and will work hard to continue to earn it.
•••
Reader: Just a quick note to let you know that Reese (the Husky) was saved by a rescue group. And that Natasha was adopted (thanks to you and your help).
The Pet of the Week column and being listed on Bakersfield.com has raised the public awareness to our existence and our adoption rate has increased.
This last week our Pet Smart adoptions were No. 1 in the district (which covers several counties and 10 different stores). WOW!!!
Saying "thank you" cannot even begin to express how grateful we are to you and The Bakersfield Californian,but thank you is all I can say.
So thank you very, very, very much!
— Tammy Eason, Wasco Animal Group
