Hardly a Republican
Hardly a Republican
The first observation I would make about Rich Voller, writer of the letter “Drop ‘gotcha,' Mitt” (Oct. 1 and TribLIVE.com), is that there is no way he is “a lifelong Republican.” No Republican would have voted for Obama-Biden the first time, let alone would choose to give him four more years.
Why? Start with their Big Government top-down economic policies, promotion of class envy/warfare, nonexistent foreign policy, overt enmity toward domestic oil and coal producers or their silence on viable nuclear energy. How about a Justice Department that picks and chooses which laws to enforce, or the Department of Health and Human Services, which thinks it can raise our children better than we can?
For the legion of Obama's “Walking Dead,” it's all George W. Bush's fault. I don't care what Bush did six or eight years ago. I care about the damage inflicted upon our republic regularly by this current feel-good, quasi-socialist administration. Obama and the Dems had complete control of government for two years and accomplished nothing outside of their ill-considered and unpopular health care legislation.
The facts speak for themselves but seem to have a pesky habit of clouding one's view when wearing rose-colored glasses. I'd better stop now, while those blissful souls such as Mr. Voller think they're still ahead.
Tom Kunsak Jr.
Show commenting policy
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 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.
- Clueless on law
- Banding helps birds
- NK-A consolidation a travesty
- Incomprehensible hatred
- Who’s responsible?
- Red light cameras II
- Overlooked by PUC
- Ex-Im & Westinghouse
- Expanding their options
- Stop the idiocy