Saturday, October 23, 2004

A local newspaper column which angers me

The column was written by Chaska, MN resident and photographer Dan Rosenberg (should be second listing on linked page). He is a former GOP district chair for Scott and Carver Counties. He is currently on the Carver County Republican Executive Committee.

The entire headline reads as follows...
(My rebuttals are in italics following his snipped writings)

In search of a president - the right
Top Ten Reasons Kerry will lose

10) He's a liberal... ...America is a center-right leaning country...

Why does being a liberal mean he will lose? I think that in comparison to many other countries in the world, America is a fairly liberal place. We have a mix of citizens who 'lean' one way or the other but it is news to me that as a country, we lean right.

9) Vietnam... ...Kerry thought he would get a free pass on this issue until the Swift Boat veterans torpedoed his plans.

Yes, he served in Vietnam. Yes, he rescued and saved some of his fellow soldiers when they were in danger and/or wounded. The Swift Boat veterans were nothing more than a group of veterans who smeared and distorted the facts in order to have their candidate elected. Money motivated this group and they stirred up a bit of controversy but in three months nobody will remember them except for being a bunch of soldier that turned against one of their own. Kerry simply voiced his opinion that the war in Vietnam was an unnecessary one and some didn't like that. Last time I checked, we were still free to voice our opinions.

8) Another slick lawyer. Kerry and Edwards are good speakers... ...they try to be all things to all people all the time.


Many politicians are lawyers. Since when is it a negative issue when politicians try to please everyone all the time? That is how they get the votes. They make promises to people that attempt to solve the problems that affect them. Politicians have done this for as long as I can remember. Nothing new here. Why is the opposition making this an issue? Have they really run out of legitimate concerns?

7) Likeability matters. You can be a star of the Yale debate team... doesn't make you any more likeable. On TV, Kerry comes off as condescending...

Apparently people like Kerry enough to support him with money and nominate him as the democratic candidate for president. On TV, some would say, Bush comes off as slow-witted and of lesser intelligence. I guess Dan Rosenberg, author of this column, is running low on pissing points and has resorted to thinking he is a fill-in for David Letterman with his very own version of a Top Ten list. Hack.

6) That Senate record... or lack thereof. ... Worse yet, he's established one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate.

Holy damn crap, he's a liberal. Aren't the majority of Democrats categorized as liberal? Aren't the majority of Republicans aligned with conservatism? Oh - My - God. A politician who aligns his position with his voting record. Is a liberal presidential candidate (and potential President) such a terrible thing for an America which is steadily needing to move forward to compete with foreign lands? I think not.

5) A gold-digger attitude about spending. ...when you look at the price tag on all these liberal plans of his, there is no way we won't have a tax increase under John Kerry.

Stop the presses, people. A politician who has voted for spending bills. When a large percentage of the bills in the Senate are based on spending, what is so shocking? Of course there will be a tax increase under Kerry, he has already outlined the increase - for those who make over $200,000 per year. The rest will receive at least a minimal CUT in taxes.

4) The religion factor. Catholic John Kerry... not doing himself and favors by going against the Pope on issues of abortion and homosexuality.

When did the world change to the point where you had to totally align your beliefs behind those set forth by your chosen religion? I am Catholic and am for women having choice in abortion. I am for gay marriage but do not feel that we need anything in the constitution allowing or forbidding it. In a way it could be seen as disobeying your religion but in the world today, is there anyone who truly follows all of the beliefs of their religion. Does anyone obey each and every rule in their workplace? How about following the rules of the road? Maybe Dan Rosenberg should take a step back and look at his own beliefs and following of rules and laws.

3) Our troops don't want him. ...latest Armed Forces Radio poll shows President Bush with 72 percent support of our troops.

Have most of our troops heard any of Kerry's stances on the issues. The only talk radio program broadcast on Armed Forces Radio is Rush Limbaugh and Laura Schlesinger. I am nearly sure that those two shows rarely, if ever, tell Kerry's true stances (without distortion) on any issues. For many stationed in Iraq, radio is their only way of keeping in touch with theh appenings in the states. Then, of course, the polls would skew towards support of Bush.

2) A position of the moment. ...it's tough to pin someone down on a position when their positions change moment to moment.

I am sure Bush has done his fair share of position changing. His father made the famous election-year promise of 'No New Taxes' and handily renegged on that. One position that Bush stood strong on was to invade Iraq. He had that vision before he was appointed president by the US Supreme Court. This may be the one point, judging by the items Rosenberg wrote, that I can't disagree with. The statements listed do make Kerry look rather undecided but when taken out of context, almost anything can look bad.

1) He's soft on terror. ...need somebody who's not araid to stay the course... ...do what is necessary to win...

You can imagine the lengthy explanation Rosenberg gave behind this one. Kerry has stated that he supports funding vehicle and body armor for our troops. He has a plan outlined on how to end the war on terror and withdraw ourselves, as a country, from the never-ending battles in the mid-east by ending our dependance on foreign oil, beefing up intelligence, using smarter ways (instead of brute military force) such as special operations units to attack terror at its roots and using smarter diplomacy to flush out terror cells in allied countries and involve theri military and special ops forces to fight terror in a smarter, more refined manner.

__________________

This column appeared in the Thursday, October 21, 2004 edition of the Chaska (MN) Herald. Their offices can be contacted at 952-448-2650. The piece in question appears as a commentary by Dan Rosenberg.

No comments: