Wrong on shutdown
Wrong on shutdown
I read the editorial “The shutdown: Who's ‘crazy'? Why, Democrats, of course” (Oct. 2 and TribLIVE.com). Among other dubious assertions, it stated: “(Remember, Senate Democrats haven't passed an actual budget in years.)” Of course, that's absolutely untrue. The Senate passed its fiscal year 2014 budget resolution in March (“Senate Passes $3.7 Trillion Budget, Setting Up Contentious Negotiations,” The New York Times, March 23).
For more than six months, House Republicans refused to name members to a conference committee that could have reconciled the House and Senate versions to avoid the government shutdown. The words and actions of Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and tea-party House members prove that the shutdown was their desired and inevitable outcome. They are proud of the shutdown — why isn't the Trib?
The Trib markets itself as “Conservative views. Objective news.” Editorials are written to persuade readers that the Trib's viewpoint is correct, using facts to support its argument. Without this, its argument fails and its editorial is self-refuted.
You can have your conservative views, but you can't have your own “conservative facts” that falsely present “reality on the ground.”
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.
- Ride-sharing’s advantages
- Coal’s biggest threat
- Export more oil
- Opposed to efficiency?
- Vandergrift killing Olmsted’s vision
- Won’t stop drilling
- Honoring Pastor Asa Roberts