Letters to the Editor

Letter: Really ‘shameful’

March 28, 2014


To the editor:

Just where has the editor of this fine paper been for two years? His March 24 editorial uses the deceptive Toyota statements to drag out the GOP’s favorite “dead horses:” Benghazi, the IRS and Fast and Furious, and then implies that the White House responses to those government actions were also deceptive. This is an old brainwashing technique recently perfected by Sen. Ted “Kool-Aid” Cruz; that is, making unfounded accusations long after endless hearings and investigations have found no malfeasance.

The editorial also uses a second trick: repeating the word “shameful” time and time again, denigrating the actions of this administration without providing any evidence.

What is “shameful” in this country? It is when an action by a political or governmental entity harms our citizens. It is “shameful” that the GOP vowed in 2008 to hinder all initiatives of the new president. And from then on, it has been “shameful” that GOP leaders have cut food stamps for poor and under-employed Americans, given tax breaks to those who stash cash overseas, tried to suppress voter turnout in the states, voted against equal pay for women, constantly tried to repeal the ACA, cut unemployment compensation for those looking for work, lessened benefits for returning veterans, gutted funds for public education — the list goes on and on.

The worst double standard that exists in government today is in the propaganda that the GOP spreads about being good for the country vs. their actual record of harming almost everything and everyone they do not agree with.


Bob Smith 4 years, 2 months ago

In other words, "Pay no attention to the fact that the current regime is running wild. Look! Over there! The Koch brothers! Get 'em!"

Seth Peterson 4 years, 2 months ago

You shouldn't use words you don't understand.

Bob Smith 4 years, 2 months ago

BTW, referring to a murdered American ambassador as a "dead horse" is very distasteful.

4 years, 2 months ago

I think that Audrey meant that those topics have been discussed a million times to infinity plus another infinity, also known as beating a dead horse, since it is dead, what is the point? She was not referring to any of those that were killed, bu the use of the deaths to score political points.

Seth Peterson 4 years, 2 months ago

So is misleading the public at large regarding the events that caused the death and trying to score political points with it through dishonesty.

Also, you know the writer was not doing this (unless you have very poor reading comprehension), but good job trying to create a problem where there isn't one in order to not acknowledge the point.

James Howlette 4 years, 2 months ago

Using his tragic death as a fake conspiracy to discredit someone you don't like and then hiding behind guilt trips whenever you're called on it is also distasteful.

Brock Masters 4 years, 2 months ago

GOP and Democrats - different sides of same coin and yet some refuse to see it. GOP bad Dems good and vice versa when neither party is good for us.

In the words of Clinton, WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?

Brock Masters 4 years, 2 months ago

What is shameful is the number of Americans living in poverty has grown and yet we give money to foreign countries including China.

What is shameful is the number of unemployed Americans in this country and the push to make illegal aliens legal so they can compete for the scarce jobs.

What is shameful is blaming the poor for living off government assistance when we created the problem. The war on poverty did nothing but create a class of people dependent on the government.

What is shameful is people ignoring or excusing the behavior of their party members while criticizing the other party for the same behavior.

Brock Masters 4 years, 2 months ago

As I reflect on what on what is shameful I think about how the democrats who attack the GOP for their war on women while bestowing god-like status on Bill Clinton.

Clinton abused his position of power to garner sex from a young intern. Those actions not only betrayed his marriage but caused harm to Lewinsky. Who knows what she might have been able to accomplish with her life if Clinton had mentored her and not used her for sex?

4 years, 2 months ago

Ms. Lewinsky was no innocent. She went after President Clinton and bragged to her friends about it. There is a great deal of information about this on the web if you care to look. He should not have responded to her seductions, but he did, and his wife and daughter were embarrassed and humiliated.

Both participants in this tawdry affair should be ashamed, but it is done and over. Time to forgive and forget and move on.

Brock Masters 4 years, 2 months ago

Wow, talk about a war on women. Blame the victim. She deserved, it, she was asking for it.....incredible. She was young and he in a position of power over her. She was and is the victim.

Here is a breaking story about Clinton. Maybe it isn't over?


Cindy Wallace 4 years, 2 months ago

Did someone mention something about 'beating a dead horse'>

Brock Masters 4 years, 2 months ago

Yes they did in reference to those that died at Benghazi.

Some things should be forgotten and others never forgotten. Which is which often depends on where you stand.

Think about it. It has been over a decade and people still bring up WMD when criticizing Bush and the GOP.

James Howlette 4 years, 2 months ago

Probably because Bush deliberately lead people into war with false pretenses, and over half a million people died, but I could totally see how it's an equivalent situation to some rag spreading rumors about Bill Clinton being a perv.

Brock Masters 4 years, 2 months ago

Thanks James for illustrating my point perfectly. Bush has been out of office for over 5 years and the Gulf war began over a decade ago, but you believe it to be relevant because you don't like Bush or the GOP.

As I said, it all depends on where you stand if it is relevant or beating a dead horse.

James Howlette 4 years, 2 months ago

I don't bring it up because I dislike Bush. I dislike Bush because he did this. And it's something someone else could do in the future, regardless of party affiliation. We haven't fixed what was broken at all. Over half a million dead and thousands upon thousands of injured veterans and civilians can hardly be considered "beating a dead horse." Beyond the human costs, we're still paying the credit card bill on his little lie.

Try bringing up a better example. Like maybe the time Bush went AWOL from his military duty. Or his C average in college. Those are dead horses.

Brock Masters 4 years, 2 months ago

And James continues to beat a dead horse blindly proving my point.

Your hate for Bush is so transparent and because of it you believe anything he did is still relevant. And it may well be, but been honest enough that there are people that feel the same way about Obama and the Clinton's so they feel their past transgressions are still relevant.

Again relevant or beating a dead horse depends on if it serves your purpose. To do it and condemn someone else for doing it is dishonest and hypocritical.

James Howlette 4 years, 2 months ago

Did you not actually read what I typed? I just specifically brought up things he did that were not relevant in order to address the point that the example you brought up was relevant. Therefore, I do not think "anything" he did was relevant, nor does it logically conclude that my only driving motivator is "hate for Bush." Pick a better example! You're making a very lousy false equivalency argument.

Brock Masters 4 years, 2 months ago

James I don't need to pick a better example. You made my point perfectly. Thank you my friend.

BTW I do believe Bush wanted to go to war - did he lie about WMDs? I don't know but I do think he wanted a reason. He was wrong, I opposed it and still do. I opposed the Patriot act then and now with Obama. Obama is just a different version of Bush.

James Howlette 4 years, 2 months ago

I think you're making my point perfectly. That you're making a false equivalency argument and continue to do so.

Scott Burkhart 4 years, 2 months ago

@ Leslie Swearingen - Are you serious? "She went after him," is your retort? Well here's how it should have been handled.

Bill Clinton to Staff Secretary: "Please don't make a big deal about this but have Ms. Lewinsky transferred to a different position within the White House. Under no circumstances are we to be scheduled for any meetings or conferences in a one on one scenario. Thank you."

The conversation was probably more along the lines of, "Have Ms. Lewinsky meet me in the Oval Office. Tell her to wear that sexy little blue number she has and I'm going to need a new box of stogies. The big ones."

Commenting has been disabled for this item.