Letters

Letters may be edited for clarity and length. E-mail to letters@ocweekly.com, or send to Letters to the Editor, c/oOC Weekly, 1666 N. Main St., Ste. 500, Santa Ana, CA 92701. Or fax to (714) 550-5908.

ONE NATION UNDER GREG

We're divided about a lot of things in this country: Bush vs. Kerry. Open borders vs. closed. Pro choice vs. no choice. But there's one thing most people agree on: Greg Haidl is an asshole.

Henry Hudson
Huntington Beach
POT, KETTLE

The words of letter writer Richard C. Jarrett, in praise of Commie Girl, resonated in my head over the past few days leading up to the election [Letters, Oct. 29]. "The only way to attack them bad guys is by being nastier and more of a smart ass." Good plan. It's working well—FOR THE REPUBLICANS! How many elections will you Democrat nasties have to lose before you realize that being nasty smart asses isn't getting you anywhere? A long, long time, I hope. A little recent history for you: Republicans have controlled the House since 1994. The entire first term of President W. saw Republican control of both the House and the Senate. At the very least, the first two years of W.'s second term will see the same. People do not vote for negative candidates. Anger, bitterness and nastiness aren't going to win elections for the Left. I know that when you lose again in 2008, it won't hurt as bad. You should be getting used to it.

B. Dirk Yarborough
via e-mail
The editor responds: You're joking, right? I know the Republicans have just won a terrific victory and good for them—and you, Dirk—but don't be such a priceless ass as to suggest Democrats are any nastier than Republicans. Two words: swift boats. Or is that one word? Still. Nasty. How about those Purple Heart Band-Aids? Very compassionate. (And who among us, when meditating on compassion, doesn't dwell upon the words of Jesus, Gandhi, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter?) As for your history lesson, Republicans holding onto the House has less to do with ideology and more to do with an electoral system that favors the incumbent, like, mmmm, always. (You and I both know that Republicans gained four seats in Texas because Tom DeLay gerrymandered districts.) So, Dirk, be a good Joe. Enjoy your victory but, like John Kerry, show some class. ZIP IT, PADRE

Regarding Gustavo Arellano's "The Gospel According to the GOP" [Oct. 29]: Isn't there an item in our Constitution that separates church and state? Wonder what or when the line will be drawn? Wonder what their stance would be if they realized the only reason the GOP is against abortion is to get their vote? Bush & Co. doesn't give a whit about an unborn child or anyone's child. Personally, I think the Church's tax-free status and the tax deduction for tithing should be taken away if they continue to meddle in politics.

Shirley Knudson
via e-mail
POT, KETTLE, DEUX

I would say it is unbelievable to me that you would print such an issue as "Burnin' Bush" [Oct. 8], but sadly it is what I have come to expect. I was not going to bother to respond, but when I read your response to the letter from "D" condemning this issue [Letters, Oct. 29], I felt compelled to address it. For you to state that President Bush and conservatives do not take personal responsibility is simply untrue. President Bush makes a decision and stands behind it, taking full responsibility, as do the majority of conservatives. The entire liberal philosophy is based on NOT taking responsibility but expecting others to bail you out. I used to enjoy your magazine, but I've now been left with the taste of your bitterness lingering in my mouth.

S.
via e-mail
The editor responds: When the economy collapsed, Bush blamed Clinton. When scandal swamped his friends and campaign contributors in major U.S. corporations, he blamed government regulators. Following Sept. 11, he blamed Clinton. When that failed to persuade, he blamed the CIA. When it turned out the CIA had alerted him in a memo titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.," he complained that being president is "hard work." When asked to testify before the 9-11 Commission, he first refused and then agreed to "visit" with the members so long as Dick Cheney could come along. When Swift Boat Veterans for Truth attacked John Kerry's war record, Bush said they were an independent group—a lie that was quickly and easily disproved. When he jacked up the federal deficit to record levels, Bush blamed nameless "liberals." When reminded he hadn't fulfilled his promise to capture Osama Bin Laden "dead or alive," he responded first by saying that Bin Laden wasn't important to the war on terror, and then, during the Presidential debates, by denying he'd ever said Bin Laden wasn't important. Following the prisoner-abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib, did Bush take responsibility? Did he acknowledge that his own top advisers had denied the applicability of the Geneva Convention and so set the stage for torture? Even you, "S," because you once enjoyed the Weekly, must know the answer. This is an administration that is almost singular in its refusal to take responsibility for its actions. We could go on with the examples, but wouldn't it be easier for you to offer even a single instance of Bush making a mistake and then owning up to it? Just one? Regarding that bitter taste: it's from actually eating our paper. Don't do that. It looks better than it tastes. CHOICES, CHOICES
1
 
2
 
All
 
Next Page »
 
My Voice Nation Help
0 comments
 
Loading...