It sounds great to say you're against the evil "sycophants of
progressivism", but it also raises a question: What are you really FOR? And
please, could the reply be a little more lengthy than a bumper sticker?
CurmudgeonSalt Lake City, UTYou forgot to mention Jay Carney, Pres.
Obama, Joe Biden, Sec. Sebelius, the NYT, MSNBC with its sycophants of
progressivism as dubious sources of news. "Improper promises" has become
the new euphemism for lying.
No one is excusing anything, but here's the difference Mr. Richards.
"Should we "excuse" the IRS scandal, the NSA scandal, the Fast and
Furious scandal, the Solyndra scandal, or the ObamaCare scandal?"Many, in fact most Americans don't consider these incidents as
"scandals". IRS incident shouldn't have happened as it did but it
has been "proved" it was decisions by long term managers.Solyndra was a poor investment from a system that has provided modernity and
immense private wealth to America.Obamacare is a misstatement to
about 1to 2 percent of the population, and the law itself will go down in
history as a major step to equality and justice. NSA, and Fast and
Furious are examples of long standing oversight problems government has had
since it's inception. Need to be corrected, need to do better but
it's an ongoing process not an Obama scandal.
Imagine all the good that could have come from the Trillions wasted in Iraq and
Afghanistan, if highly-moral Republicans hadn't been duped into voting for
In her letter Ms Erikson, goes on about how important the truth is, all while
spouting her own whopper of a lie: " Why does it matter? (Unbelievably, that
was Hillary Clinton’s question regarding the attack in Benghazi)."
You forgot 'WMD in Iraq'.
A lie is a lie is a lie. The worst lie is the one we tell our self when we
accept a lie as truth.
re:JThompsonThanks for summarizing the Limbaugh/Beck/right-winged
propaganda. In 2011, officials told The Boston Globe that the
president had never met Onyango Obama, who at the time had been arrested for
drunk driving.Jay Carney said officials in 2011 didn't ask
Obama about whether he had met his uncle and had instead relied on other
records, including the president's own memoir.Onyango says and
a friend confirmed that Obama lived with him for three weeks (not 2 yrs) at his
Cambridge apartment when he attended Harvard Law School.
@GZE,No, the majority of Americans would not have voted for Swallow
as the majority are not registered voters in the state of Utah. ;)However, I have no doubt that Sean Reyez would have garnered enough additional
support to have come out of the primary victorious and probably would not have
been stained by association sufficiently to have lost to Dee Smith.
I think I know how this political blame thing works, let me give it a try:"The writer is trying desperately to change the topic from how John
Swallow got elected here in Utah, and if I were them, I'd want to change
the subject, too!"How did I do? I've been taking lessons
from John Boehner.
re:SCfanWhile I agree it pertains to the "low information voter" I
don't think it is confined to the low information voter. I think the
majority of us do it to a greater or lesser extent. Perhaps it is part of the
human condition. There is no lack of information available to us
now. The challenge is to sift through it all and identify those sources which
are merely irresponsible propaganda/commercial exploitation with no goal toward
presenting factual/reliable information vs those which do adhere to higher
journalistic standards. People who aren't discriminating, or unable to
discriminate--the low information voter--can often be led to believe things
which have no basis in reality. But sometimes the more subtle misinformation is
harder to detect and can also lead to wrong conclusions and beliefs.
JThompson's post is precisely the kind of thing referred to in the 1:18
post above. Perhaps he is too young to recall everything associated with the
dingle name "Watergate", but I am not. Nixon (and dozens of
others') lies were such, and over a long period, that Senate support for
Nison dropped to around 10. That doesn't happen on the basis of one little
fib. JT can attempt to equate all that with something pertaining to Obama's
uncle, but all lies are NOT the same in their severity or harm. An accurate
answer to JT's concluding question would be - about a thousand years.
This letter seems to have been written by one of those "low information"
voters that conservatives keep telling us about.
GZEIn case you were not aware, recent polls do show that were the election
held this year, instead of last, Romney would have won the Presidency. Not
surprising considering in about every poll Obama is very low in all the major
issues like health care and the economy.TruthseekerSounds to
me like you have just defined what some of us term "the low information
GZE made a good point. John Swallow stepped down. He is not in office. Swallow's "crimes" were minor compared to Obama. Should
Obama stay in office or should he do the right thing and remove himself? If John Swallow is not enough of an example, how about Richard Nixon?
Nixon did not play cards while an embassy was under attack. Nixon did not foist
a 2,000 page ObamaCare bill on America. Nixon lied to us about a 2-bit
burglary. His "crime" was that he got caught in a lie. Obama has lied
to us about Benghazi. He has lied to us about ObamaCare. He has lied to us
about his uncle. (He told us that he didn't know the man when he had lived
with that uncle for two years.) How many lies does it take before Obama's
"crimes" equal Nixon's?
What tires me about letters like Joyce's is this: they will start with a
premise that is impossible to attack - "Public officials should be
honest." But then, when the examples of dishonesty begin to roll, they are
completely one-sided, invariably against Democrats, as if the writer had lived
on Jupiter before Inauguration day, 2009. Nor is there any comparison of the
severity of consequences of one lie ("I did not have sex...") to another
("We know where Saddam keeps his WMD.."). This kind of manipulation of
the past creates a kind of dishonesty itself, usually in the form of assuming
Face it.We really don't want the truth. We only
want to hear what underscores our beliefs. We don't have the
patience, capacity or desire to deal with a complex reality, facts and
Applying that principle to recent events, would the majority of Americans have
voted for John Swallow if they had known before the 2012 election that he was
lying about ... well, everything? Sadly, the answer is probably "yes."
To "Blue" actually those things are not just a conservative ploy to make
Obama look bad.If Eric Holder is as innocent as he claims regarding
the Fast and Furious operation, then why did he have to be protected by
Executive Privelage?If Obama was honest about Benghazi, then tell us
where he was during the attack? The first media reports were that he was
asleep, then later he was reported to be in the situation room, another report
has him playing cards. Where was he and why won't he come out and tell us?
He first said that Benghazi was a result of a protest about a YouTube video
that nobody watched. How many people go to protests with RPGs?The
IRS scandal is another case where people within the government refuse to tell
the truth. At first it was claimed to be a local office issue, but then we
found out that some involved were frequent visitors to the WH.
Todays winner is Mike Richards. He said it best. All you Obama defenders are
just confirming what Joyce, the letter writer, was talking about in the first
place. Thanks for making her case.
CurmudgeonWhen I castigate the "media," I am including the Wall
Street Journal, Deseret News, Fox News, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Ann
Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, etc. Although I don't consider the ones
towards the end of your list to be "News" sources (and they don't
consider themselves to be "journalists" or "News" sources).
They are very open about being opinion and commentary. When
I'm looking for real "News" (not opinion)... I go to the network
news. But they seem to be covering for the Government today instead of being
the watchdog. Today they seem to FOLLOW the news stories, not exposing them.
Meaning once something has been exposed by another source... they will
grudgingly report on it, but they won't BREAK the story. And if
there's a way to minimize it.. they'll do it (where they used to be
tough adversaries of the administration, doing their "duty" to expose
ANY wrong doing).I get some news from the internet... but I
don't believe it until I can confirm it. Most of these sources have an
agenda. I HOPE the networks don't have a political agenda.
Should we "excuse" Mr. Obama because other elected officials were
dishonest? Is that the measure that we want to use? Most of us
accept the fact that the media failed to "vet" Mr. Obama. They failed
to perform their duty as the "4th Estate". They failed to tell us about
his personal business dealings. They failed to tell us who he associated with
and why those associations should cause concern. They failed to do their job.
So, we have a President who "fooled" the people.Should we
"excuse" Benghazi? Are the four Americans who were killed
"expendable"? Does the administration really think that covering up the
facts is justified when Americans died?Should we "excuse"
the IRS scandal, the NSA scandal, the Fast and Furious scandal, the Solyndra
scandal, or the ObamaCare scandal?Should honest Americans excuse
inept behavior? Should honest Americans excuse "misrepresentations"?
Bush did not control Obama's actions. There is no valid
argument that would allow anyone to excuse Obama's actions because of Bush
or any other President. Each of us will answer for our own thoughts
and for our own actions. Dishonestly will not be accepted when we answer for
2 bits:When you castigate the "media," I presume you are
including the Wall Street Journal, Deseret News, Fox News, Sean Hannity, Rush
Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, and the other right-wing talking
heads. Or is it only the media sources you disagree with?Long live the 1st amendment, which permits the media to present their
"news" and "opinion" in any way they choose, and leaves it to
the citizens to sort out what is incredible, biased, slanted, inaccurate, or
manipulative. That some citizens fail to exercise diligence and common sense is
not the fault of the media.
If honesty were the principal criteria by which our leaders were judged, Jimmy
Carter would now be remembered as the greatest president of the post-war era.
Talk about partisan blinders. The writer failed to mention Bushco at all! How
about the lies and corporate welfare and trillion dollar wars? How many American
and innocent Iraqi citizens died?The next President will be a
Democrat too. Our country is headed back from the brink of disaster created by
Republicans, Bush, Cheney and the majority of Utah voters.
Unlike this writer, I am not a mind reader, so I can't tell if the
president is a deliberate liar. However I suspect he was talking in large
strokes when he said "you can keep it." I know that I myself and 95% of
Americans are "keeping" it. The small percentage who aren't was
probably not in his head at the time. As for Benghazi, Mr. Clinton did not say
"what does it matter at this point?" in regard to her response to the
attack. She was talking about the motives behind the attack.
It's true that our form of government is based on the belief that the
majority of the people won't intentionally pick dishonest leaders. But
how can the voting public know what's really going on when the media and
the government are working together?The government in Washington is
so far away from the people... that there is literally no way for us to know
what they are actually doing without it being told to us by the media. If the
media won't tell us when the President lies or there are dirty dealings in
Congress or the other agencies of government... we don't know, so we
don't know we need to unelected them.TV is the source of
information most Americans use to know what the government is actually doing.
When they are working together and cover for each other (as I think they often
do today)... the people MAY unintentionally elect dishonest people and not even
KJB1. Yes, I know Romney lost but most of America lost with him, especially the
middle class who's median income has declined by more than 9% since Obama
took office, according to the US Census Bureau. The "poor" are doing
better as food stamps and welfare entitlements have doubled and so are the rich
doing better under Obama.
More right-wing whining. Guess it's easier to keep shouting
"Benghazi!" or "Fast and Furious!" instead of actually putting
forth new ideas and, you know, governing.And Mountainman? Romney
lost, and all the wishing thinking on Earth won't change that. It's
time to move on.
Yes, honesty and integrity count. There are posters who agree with that
concept. They think that whatever happens, when their candidate is in office,
is proper. They use no measuring stick to compare his actions with is expected
duties.Benghazi is a case in point. Some would say that things were
too chaotic for Obama to know what to do - as Commander in Chief. Were things
so chaotic that his only way to handle the situation was to play cards in
another room, or, are we to suppose that those Secret Service agents who played
cards with Obama lied and that assigning the "cause" to an unknown film
was the proper thing to do?The IRS is another case in point.
Obama's brother's "fund raising" organization was approved and
30 months of "back receipts" allowed when hundreds and hundreds of
conservative organizations were harassed by the IRS with the IRS demanding
information about prayer, about abortion, about contributors.Dishonesty cannot and must not be acceptable, whether that dishonesty is in
Washington or whether that dishonesty is here in Utah, committed by citizens who
promote and applaud those dishonest elected officials.
If the election was held today, Romney would lead Obama, 49% to 45%, among
registered voters in an ABC News/Washington Post poll released Tuesday. The
findings are within the poll's margin of error, but pollster Gary Langer
notes that, "Obama's support among registered voters now is actually 6
points lower than his showing in the poll".Voters do care about
honesty and integrity and will take care of business beginning in the 2014
@Joyce EricksonI'm afraid the main response you're going
to get from the usual suspects is, "Because Bush." And that's
shameful. In a democratic republic, the best way to get honesty from our leaders
it to first be honest with ourselves.
Joyce Ericson says:"some Americans don’t think it matters
if our elected officials purposely deceive us."And then she goes
on to "purposely decieve us" by neglecting half the story. The IRS also
investigated liberal groups that were trying to create "social welfare"
organizations; leaving out that part is deceit by ommission. She then ignores
that the "witness" for the Bengazi incident lied about his
"witnessing" it. Another deceit by ommission. How many people really
"liked" those plans that were cancelled? They covered pretty much
nothing. Another deceit by ommission.Joyce, do you know what
When I read the title and first sentence of this letter, I thought it was about
John Swallow. Anyone else have that happen to them?Then, I read the
rest of the letter. Silly me! Of course we wouldn't read anything negative
about Swallow! Of course we gotta go back to 6 month old radical right wing
talking points attacking the President. The very same talking points that even
Mitch McConnel said were, "ridiculous." Thanks for the
letter. Lets keep our focus on DC while ignoring everything that happens in Salt
Lake. We can just "trust" in our reps to do the right thing.
Joyce,IRS, Fast & Furious and Benghazi are among the most
demonstrably _dishonest_ claims that conservatives are pushing these days.Re the ACA, ok, yes, I suppose the president should have said, "If
you like your health insurance you can keep it... provided that it's not a
junk catastrophic-care-only policy that your insurance company would rather
cancel than bring up to the minimum levels necessary to actually cover basic
healthcare."Your commitment to honesty is commendable. We
should insist on honest behavior and speech from _all_ of our elected
representatives. If I searched the archives of this paper's
opinion section will I find letters from you also decrying the rampant
dishonesty of the Reagan and Bush administrations?
The Federal government has approximately 2.75 million employees. At any given
time, a few of them are likely to make mistakes. And when they do, it takes a
little while for their supervisors, and their supervisors' supervisors to
figure out what happened and what to do about it. So let's not label
honest mistakes as purposeful deception.Case in point: Benghazi. In a
tremendously chaotic and difficult day, there was initially considerable
confusion as to what was going on when our mission in Benghazi was attacked. It
took a few days to sort everything out. That's what happened, and
that's all that happened. Fast and Furious; same thing. Some
employees in the IRS office in Cincinnati asked for extra documentation for some
organizations, left and right, seeking tax exempt status. That's all that
happened there. The President may have slightly oversold the ACA.
He's apologized for it. I assume you're equally upset with
politicians who compared the ACA to slavery, or the Holocaust, or made up silly
nonsense about 'death panels'?