ShareThis Page

Incomprehensible & disrespectful

| Sunday, Aug. 3, 2014, 9:00 p.m.

I empathize with the sentiments expressed in Joni Campbell's letter “Incomprehensible hatred” . The disdain for President Barack Obama is not only incomprehensible, it is disrespectful to the man and to the office of the president of the United States of America.

Each side seems to view the president through its respective prism; an educated, pensive commander in chief becomes an uppity, indecisive tyrant. It's sad that the Republicans have never accepted that Obama was duly elected, not once but twice. As heard or seen on conservative media, he's “not really American,” “the other,” “Muslim,” “hates America.”

Compromise is the only way forward. Republicans view “compromise” (House Speaker John Boehner refused to even utter the word) as a dirty word. Items on the congressional agenda considered routine, i.e., infrastructure, jobs, are blocked. Ideas embraced by Republican think tanks (health care/The Heritage Foundation) are rejected when Obama supports them. So, Obama is being blocked not because of ideology but because of ... ? One wonders.

In lieu of governance, the Republicans are filing a lawsuit and have formed committees to investigate and then, when the results of the investigations are not as desired, re-investigate at taxpayer expense. The most unproductive Congress has left the American people “holding the bag” — and sadly, it's empty.

Ellen M. Shar

Bethel Park

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.