2006 Predctions and Medicare Modernization Act
A few letters submitted to the Boston Globe over the weekend; any one of which would add at least a day's balance to the liberally extreme slant of the editorial pages:
Editor,
In Hedgehogs and Foxes (op-ed, December 30, A19), Ms. Ellen Goodman asks, "Anyone ready to make the first predictions on" the first predictions of 2006?
This Fox predicts that as long as George W. Bush is President, the liberal predictors that dominate the media will continue to predict doom and gloom for the United States. Even in the face of continued success in the war on terror (on the battlefield, at the ballot box and on the home front), the return of U.S. troops from Iraq, the continuation of historically low unemployment rates, the continuation of historically high home ownership rates, the continuation of robust GDP numbers and low inflation numbers, the left-wing predictors, most definitely Hedgehogs, will not only predict doom and gloom; it might even sound like they're hoping for it.
This Fox will be absolutely right . . . and I take no joy in it. (End of letter.)
Editor,
As usual, Mr. Robert Kuttner is making up history for the purpose of writing an anti-Bush screed (Dollars to doughnuts, Bush's drug benefit is no bargain, op-ed, December 31, A11).
Mr. Kuttner writes, " . . . when the Bush Administration rammed this bill (the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act of 2003) through the Republican Congress . . . ."
The facts are that the bill passed the U.S. Senate 54 - 44 with Sens. John F. Kerry and Joseph Lieberman not voting. I don't know why Sen. Lieberman didn't vote, but I'd bet the ranch the Great Equivocator, Sen. Kerry, was positioning to, well, equivocate . . . great leadership that! Eleven Democrats voted in support of the bill including liberal stalwart Ms. Dianne Feinstein (D, CA). The legislation was endorsed by the AARP, a fantastically liberal lobbying group. Of course, if anyone wants to argue the eleven Democrats were "misled", I'll then acknowledge the eleven Democrats, and their entire staffs, are demonstrably dumb.
Next, I'll concede, like most legislation passed by bi-partisan votes, this legislation can be improved. But, it is hoping against hope for Mr. Kuttner to suggest a Democrat might lead! Mr. Kuttner suggests a Democrat should have the "moxie and the wit" to propose a "straight-forward fix" and "take it to the country in the 2006 elections." Does Mr. Kuttner know the Democrats of which he speaks? They don't propose anything! No plan on national security. No plan on the economy. No plan on income tax reform. No plan on race relations. No plan on education. No plan on Social Security reform. DNC chairman Howard Dean is actually running around the Country saying the Democrats aren't the Party in power so Democrats don't need to have a plan . . . for anything. A fix? That's rich. Thanks for the huge laugh, Mr. Kuttner. (End of letter.)
Editor,
It is sheer idiocy to write, as Mr. Jonathan Powers does in "Behind veil of Iraq war, winds of peace (op-ed, December 31, A11)", that, "The war in Iraq has become a living example of how not to use the blunt instrument of armed might. At the same time, its fire and smoke are obscuring many positive trends all over the world. For the 10th successive year, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute has reported that the number of wars has fallen over the last 12 years. The New York-based Freedom House reported this month that the spread of democracy and the respect for human rights continues on its upward trajectory. This year was one of the most successful years for freedom since 1972."
The 50 million people in Afghanistan and Iraq are participating in "one of the most successful years for freedom since 1972" in spite of the war on terror? You've got to be kidding me. Who could possibly believe this lunacy?
Usually, I'd be very suspicious of a London-based writer citing organizations that begin with the words "Stockholm" or "New York". But, in this case, I'll accept, as fact, Mr. Powers' statements above; clearly, though, he forgot what he was arguing. Anyway, if Freedom House has an annual award for promoting freedom, they should certainly present this year's award to President George W. Bush, the global leader in the war on terror. Heck, they should even consider naming the award after him. (End of letter.)
A few letters submitted to the Boston Globe over the weekend; any one of which would add at least a day's balance to the liberally extreme slant of the editorial pages:
Editor,
In Hedgehogs and Foxes (op-ed, December 30, A19), Ms. Ellen Goodman asks, "Anyone ready to make the first predictions on" the first predictions of 2006?
This Fox predicts that as long as George W. Bush is President, the liberal predictors that dominate the media will continue to predict doom and gloom for the United States. Even in the face of continued success in the war on terror (on the battlefield, at the ballot box and on the home front), the return of U.S. troops from Iraq, the continuation of historically low unemployment rates, the continuation of historically high home ownership rates, the continuation of robust GDP numbers and low inflation numbers, the left-wing predictors, most definitely Hedgehogs, will not only predict doom and gloom; it might even sound like they're hoping for it.
This Fox will be absolutely right . . . and I take no joy in it. (End of letter.)
Editor,
As usual, Mr. Robert Kuttner is making up history for the purpose of writing an anti-Bush screed (Dollars to doughnuts, Bush's drug benefit is no bargain, op-ed, December 31, A11).
Mr. Kuttner writes, " . . . when the Bush Administration rammed this bill (the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act of 2003) through the Republican Congress . . . ."
The facts are that the bill passed the U.S. Senate 54 - 44 with Sens. John F. Kerry and Joseph Lieberman not voting. I don't know why Sen. Lieberman didn't vote, but I'd bet the ranch the Great Equivocator, Sen. Kerry, was positioning to, well, equivocate . . . great leadership that! Eleven Democrats voted in support of the bill including liberal stalwart Ms. Dianne Feinstein (D, CA). The legislation was endorsed by the AARP, a fantastically liberal lobbying group. Of course, if anyone wants to argue the eleven Democrats were "misled", I'll then acknowledge the eleven Democrats, and their entire staffs, are demonstrably dumb.
Next, I'll concede, like most legislation passed by bi-partisan votes, this legislation can be improved. But, it is hoping against hope for Mr. Kuttner to suggest a Democrat might lead! Mr. Kuttner suggests a Democrat should have the "moxie and the wit" to propose a "straight-forward fix" and "take it to the country in the 2006 elections." Does Mr. Kuttner know the Democrats of which he speaks? They don't propose anything! No plan on national security. No plan on the economy. No plan on income tax reform. No plan on race relations. No plan on education. No plan on Social Security reform. DNC chairman Howard Dean is actually running around the Country saying the Democrats aren't the Party in power so Democrats don't need to have a plan . . . for anything. A fix? That's rich. Thanks for the huge laugh, Mr. Kuttner. (End of letter.)
Editor,
It is sheer idiocy to write, as Mr. Jonathan Powers does in "Behind veil of Iraq war, winds of peace (op-ed, December 31, A11)", that, "The war in Iraq has become a living example of how not to use the blunt instrument of armed might. At the same time, its fire and smoke are obscuring many positive trends all over the world. For the 10th successive year, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute has reported that the number of wars has fallen over the last 12 years. The New York-based Freedom House reported this month that the spread of democracy and the respect for human rights continues on its upward trajectory. This year was one of the most successful years for freedom since 1972."
The 50 million people in Afghanistan and Iraq are participating in "one of the most successful years for freedom since 1972" in spite of the war on terror? You've got to be kidding me. Who could possibly believe this lunacy?
Usually, I'd be very suspicious of a London-based writer citing organizations that begin with the words "Stockholm" or "New York". But, in this case, I'll accept, as fact, Mr. Powers' statements above; clearly, though, he forgot what he was arguing. Anyway, if Freedom House has an annual award for promoting freedom, they should certainly present this year's award to President George W. Bush, the global leader in the war on terror. Heck, they should even consider naming the award after him. (End of letter.)
posted by Zack at 1:15 PM
1 Comments:
Your thought process is muddled because you are an advocate for the right wing extremists currently in control; also know as the Republican Party. You take any issue and start with your conclusion, that the administration, or some other Republican, is correct, falsely accused, etc., and then you twist the logical analysis backwards to get to your desired result, completely contrary to a true analytical search for the truth or the correct answer.
There are clear thinking right wing orientated people, George Will for example, you are not among them. Your thoughts are further muddled by framing all discussions in an American left vs. right, liberal vs. conservative posture, the fact that John Kerry or Hillary Clinton support or oppose a policy does not change my independent analysis of it, if they were to both vote to support the continuation of the war in Iraq today I would still be opposed to it, your reliance on their votes to show the correctness of Bush's position(s) is unfounded as their votes do not add, nor delete, any weight to the "analytical scale" that every issue must be weighed on. You obviously spend a significant amount of time working on your blog, we (anyone reading your blog) can get your point of view, the Republican "talking points" of the day, from innumerable sources, for your blog to gain any traction or have any value you should spend your time analyzing issues irrespective of the identity of the politicians supporting it or opposing it and open up your political spectrum outside of the narrow definition of liberal and conservative contained within the conservative mass media of America.
Note: yes, the mass media in America is conservative, it does not advocate radical change; there is not a single major media outlet in the United States that: (1) favors lessoning the expenditure of more money on our military defense budget that the rest of the world combined, (2) lessening our foreign soil military bases (more than 720 at last count), (3) lessening our consumption of over 50% of the entire worlds oil usage every year, (4) favors universal child labor laws, (5) favors universal access to quality health care, the list is endless. You opine that the Boston Globe is liberal; it is conservative, the Globe ownership and management team advocates maintaining the American system in its present form, a conservative stance, minor changes here and there but still a clear acceptance of vast disparity in wealth between the American citizens as well as the acceptance of a great standing military to enforce the American world geo-political dominance for the benefit of our corporations, as well as the economic benefit of the American citizenry to the great detriment of a vast number of the citizens of the world.
At the end of the day you will probably end up supporting the administrations positions, but I suggest that in your blog it would be interesting for you to analyze the issues irrespective of the categorization of them as a liberal or conservative idea.
Post a Comment
<< Home