The unholy trinity
Recent letters castigating the insensitivity of U.S. Rep. Keith Rothfus — as well as those lamenting the tragedy of Newtown and the power of the gun lobby — fail to grasp an underlying truth: It is Rothfus' and most Republican politicians' abject obeisance to the unholy trinity: Rush Limbaugh, Grover Norquist and Wayne LaPierrre.
This trio wields virtually omnipotent power in their respective industries: talk radio, tax lobbying and gun marketing. Does any Republican running for office dare to disagree with their uncompromising positions? Please, Rep. Rothfus, say something like:
• “Limbaugh is a bloviating bully who never dares engage in a true debate with any articulate liberal. I repudiate his daily three hours of hate.”
• “Norquist's required pledge never to raise taxes is demeaning to thinking politicians, and I refuse to debase myself by signing it.”
• “LaPierrre is a tool of the gun manufacturers. I refuse to accept his slippery-slope argument that any common-sense gun control subverts the Second Amendment.”
Statements like these would brand Rothfus a political “atheist,” and we all know what the chances are of an atheist being elected to public office.
Limbaugh, Norquist and LaPierre hold an overwhelmingly adverse influence over public discourse and any legislation the mentally competent deem sensible.
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.
- Corbett, not Wolf
- Working hard in fast food
- Not man for job
- Workers must earn higher pay
- ‘Badges’ before Brooks
- Re-elect Evankovich
- Justices behaving badly