Partisan response from right wing shills at local rag (Dean)

[Mari333]

Heres a letter I sent to the editor of a local newspaper attacking Howard Dean for using religion as a subject on his campaign trail:

Dear Herald Palladium:
Your recent editorial bemoaning the fact that Howard Dean is speaking about
religion on his campaign trail amuses me to no end. Talk about the pot
calling the kettle black. The Bush administration is so beset with overtly
using the name of God in every aspect of their domestic and foreign policy
it has become a mockery. Their need to tap into the most extremist of
religious fanatics in this country to justify a war that should have never
occured, which is well known as the "Armegeddon Lobby", their need to use
lies and excuses when everyone with a mind knows this is another Crusade ,
and their neoconservative Straussian political agenda that is fast
destroying this country from within is never written about by your editorial
staff, which, it seems, are merely shills for the current administration.
As the mother of a young man who is in Iraq as we speak, and supports the
troops but does NOT support this pre emptive war that is not only destroying
our economy but is destroying our children as they are sent over like cannon
fodder for wealthy oil executives , I suggest you stop wearing your
partisanship on your sleeves and realize that there are a great many people
who will vote for Anyone But Bush, and you might to well to use your own
resources in what used to be a "free press", and start focussing on the real
reasons for the criminal activity occuring under your noses at the White
House, rather then worrying about Howard Dean, who, thank God, had the
wherewithal to speak the truth about the Bush administration aka criminals
and traitors to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights..even conservatives
are waking up to that fact.
...........................................
Here is the editors response to me:


Actually, the editorial did not, as you say, "bemoan the fact that Howard
Dean is speaking about religion on his campaign trail." It is our position
that it is OK to speak about religion on the campaign trail.

The editorial bemoaned that a secularist such as Howard Dean is trying to
pass himself off as a devout Christian in order to win votes in the Bible
Belt. It implied that as a rare churchgoer, Dean should stick to the issues
that he knows rather than try to leverage God and Jesus for votes, and that
Bible Belt voters would appreciate his honesty about matters of religion
much more than they will appreciate a hypocrite who doesn't know that Job is
in the Old Testament.

As someone who obviously is not happy with politicians using religion on the
stump, such as George Bush, I would have thought you might agree with the
point.

If you'd like to recast the first sentence, we'll run your letter.

The Herald-Palladium
..............................................

and here is MY response to him!
On the contrary, many people consider Howard Dean to be a devout
Christian..it is merely your opinion that he is a "secularist" based on your
definition of what a "Christian" is. Many people consider Bush to be a Faux
Christian, i.e. Pharisee......and yet that is also their opinion. You can
choose to either print the letter or not. In the meantime, I stand by my
letter.
PS: You will know them by the fruits they bear. To many of us, going to
church on Sunday does not equate being a Christian. The GOP does not "own"
the definition of Christianity, and Christ, to many of us, was a Liberal.
I suggest you read the Beatitudes.
Oh, and Thou Shalt Not Lie might be a good one to consider questioning the
entire administration at the White House when it comes to WMDs and faulty
intelligence.
Sincerely,

[cavebat2000]

1. DaNG!

LoL. You go get em! DU will support ya. :)

[Mari333]

2. These people really piss me off

and I bet they wont print my letter, the chickenshits.

[Darth_Kitten]

4. I'll second that!!!!

DANG!!! HOT FLAMING DANG!!!! :thumbsup: :)

[el_gato]

3. The Herald Pablum

is more like it judging by thier reponse to you

[cleahy]

5. The Moderate's guide to voting all Democrat in 2004

In a similar vein, I was debating on a web board with some friends recently, and in discussing politics one man bemoaned that all politicians were idiots, and he couldn't figure out who to vote for since he hated them all. This was my reply.

---

Well, I hate to sound partisan, but I can tell you what MY conclusion on this was.

Like I said, I used to be a moderate with leftist leanings. I voted mostly for the man.

I came to the conclusion a few years back though, that the only way to promote the OLD ways, of debate and compromise, was to vote AGAINST extremism. When a candidate behaved in an extremist manner, I voted against him.

Three things happened since last election.

1) Party discipline in the Republican arena became rigid. While this makes them highly effective, it also makes them ALL to blame for the actions of each. When you congeal your group into a solid block, then the entire block must be dealt with as a whole instead of the individual members. If you vote for a moderate republican these days, he/she just gets strong-armed into their borg-like extreme right wing machine, adding to an extremist power base.

2) The Bush administration pioneered the tactic of claiming to be moderate, but governs to the FAR right. By far, his administration is the furthest to the right than any administration in modern history.

3) Florida in the last election convinced me that I should vote practically, and not idealistically. With this much at stake, I want my vote to COUNT. I'll vote my idealistic choice when the current atmosphere of extremes relaxes.

Where does this leave us? Because of number two, I can't TRUST Bush to say what he's going to do. He speaks moderate, and governs on the extreme and partisan edge.

Because of number ONE, I have to apply this reasoning to ALL Republicans, until such a time as they loosen up and allow their moderates a voice.

Because of number THREE, I have to vote either Republican or Democrat.

I hate unthinking partisanship, but until the Republicans move to the center, speak more honestly, and loosen up their discipline to allow me to vote for the man again, I'm going to hold my nose, and pull the "All Democrats" lever.

[tom_paine]

9. Your experience and insights parallel my own

I also hate unthinking partisanship. However, for the moment of crisis we are currently in, I have embraced it for similar reasons as you.

I agree with your points wholeheartedly.

[newyawker99]

11. Hi cleahy!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[heidler]

6. Wearing religion like a coat always pissed me off.

I admired Dean for not doing it and thought Bush was a hog for wallowing it. The real problem the way I see it is the American people are 24 carot hypocrits so if Dean wants to save us from hog Bush he has to play the stupid game. I forgive him.

[tom_paine]

7. You should make sure you rewrite your first sentence and get that publishe

He offered to do so. As angry as you sound, please cool off, rewrite your first sentence and get that excellent letter published!

[eissa]

8. Excellent letter!

BTW, does anyone have the post outlining the reasons Jesus would be a liberal? If so, please re-post or point me in the right direction. Thanks!

[dae]

10. First off, prayers of safekeeping for your son and all of our troops in

Iraq and Afganistan. Secondly, way to hang the Pharisees with their own words.

[DebJ]

12. You are only a Christian if you attend services? If I ever find church

services and a congregation that actually are Christian, I probably would attend myself.