GOP, 2012 & 2016 I
Joseph Sabino Mistick's column “What's next for Republicans?” (Nov. 11 and TribLIVE.com) would be amusing were it not so pathetically slanted as to leave one's head shaking in disbelief. Mistick recites a litany of specks and pebbles in the eyes of Republicans while apparently blinded by the log in his own ocular orifice.
Though some of his advisories concerning gay marriage and other social issues may indeed be worthy of attention, his comment on “fear-mongering” Republican ads is ludicrous vis-à-vis the Democrat ads in this election.
Mistick apparently saw neither “Granny being pushed off the cliff” nor the numerous ads targeting Bain Capital and featuring a man assigning direct personal blame to Mitt Romney for the death of his wife from cancer.
Further, Romney never said 47 percent of Americans are “slackers, living off government programs, unable or unwilling to provide for themselves.” He simply said 47 percent or so of Americans pay no income tax and thus probably wouldn't be swayed by arguments that taxes should be lowered.
He never used the term “slackers” and didn't demean those less fortunate in any way, but rather the convoluted tax code.
Yes, Joseph, the Republican Party has some serious soul-searching and regrouping to do. But hopefully, such regrouping will not entail the use of ads in 2016 that remotely sink to the near cesspool level of most of the Democrat ads of this 2012 election season.
Robert J. Beltz
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.