Obama rhetoric failsmedia’s accuracy test
The presidential candidates of both parties are playing fast and loose with the truth. The Statesman newspaper is providing a valuable service in identifying many of these with its “fact checks.”
One of the more significant recently was the revelation that President Obama said in his nomination acceptance speech that he “would use the money we’re no longer spending on war to pay down our debt and put more people back to work. ... ” He observed that the two wars have cost “over a trillion dollars.”
The only problem with that is that we haven’t yet spent those dollars. They remain to be paid as part of the national debt. So, there is nothing to save and his proposed spending budget would only add a corresponding amount, plus interest, to that debt. You will remember from former President Clinton’s nomination speech, his representation something to the effect that the mystery of President Obama’s ability to finance his planned programs while reducing the debt could be explained by “arithmetic.” That is apparently not “generally accepting arithmetic principles,” perhaps “faux arithmetic.”
G.W. (BILL) TONKIN, Boise
Presidents shouldn’tbe defined by religion
You can argue that you’ll vote for a good person, regardless of their religious beliefs, but what is your definition of good? Someone who believes in the “sanctity” of life? Someone who doesn’t drink certain beverages? If either happens to apply then you are no longer an impartial voter but are imposing a religious viewpoint to a personal matter.
The religious background of the president should not be an issue to voters, as the practice of faith is and should be a private matter. What is important is the morality of the person in the White House, and this is influenced by religion but shouldn’t be defined by it. Jefferson wrote, “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship.” Can Americans separate their church from state?
TOM DEMPSEY, Boise
There’s good reasonfor supporting choice
Week after week I read letters in this newspaper that make inhumane statements, such as a 12-year-old girl should be forced to carry a pregnancy that was the result of rape because, as Christopher Bolton of Meridian put it, she’s already traumatized, what’s a little more?
The fact is that men like Mr. Bolton will never understand what a woman is going through when she faces a difficult, often complex pregnancy decision. There’s a reason that so many Republican wives are all pro-choice — from Betty Ford to Nancy Reagan to Laura Bush to current House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s wife, Diana Cantor. These women know that they cannot walk in another woman’s shoes and know what she and her family are going through.
Did you know six out of 10 women who have abortions are already mothers? Mandating government interference in their medical decisions — or in a victim of rape or incest’s medical decisions — is far from the cry of family values these anti-choice people claim. If we want to talk family values, let’s talk about expanding birth control options and making contraception easy for anyone to obtain so we can actually prevent abortion.
ADELE NYQVIST, Boise
Republicans shouldrevisit party platform
The news in August was dominated by the idiotic statements of Rep. Todd Akin. There is a large group of GOP lawmakers who are serious about outlawing abortion in the case of rape. For the party of small government, this is astonishing. I can think of no more brutal governmental intervention than forcing a woman to give birth to a child conceived from a rape.
While I do not pretend to move female GOP supporters to vote for a Democrat, I ask where were your voices when the GOP platform adopted this? Abortion restrictions in the case of rape are not only terrible politics but they are morally reprehensible and stunningly inconsistent given the fervent GOP support for less government in our lives.
I’d like to see a GOP with ideas that effectively speak to moderate Americans. But forcing a woman to take a rape-caused pregnancy to term is a deal breaker. I ask all women in the GOP to consider what their role should be in speaking to the power brokers who have made this a formal plank in the Republican platform. How can you allow this to stand without pushing back?
JOHN LODAL, Boise
Trudeau gets free pass
Recent events brought a firestorm from the White House and others against an American’s publication that presumably offended the Muslim religion, while giving grudging recognition to our Constitution, which protects it.
The next Sunday brings the national publication by the Statesman of Mr. Trudeau’s ridicule of the Jewish and Christian religions, being a superficial and sophomoric representation of those religions pertaining to the origin of life, within the so-called comic strip, Doonesbury, presumably addressed to America’s children. To which there was no reaction at all from Jews, Christians, the White House or the editorialists. Besides being a tribute to Jews, Christians and our Constitution, this condemns those who search for a reason to prosecute the American for the exercise of the same constitutional right, and points to the hypocrisy of the White House and the editorialists, including the Idaho Statesman, which attempts to divert attention from the failed Obama policy, which created the context for the criminal reaction of the Arab Winter. Shame on you.
BILL SCHROEDER, Boise
Hateful rants playloose with the facts
As usual around this time of the month I was treated to the usual hate-filled rantings of Dano Savino, the Kuna hatemonger. Where he gets all his hate for his fellow Americans is beyond me. For those of you who cling to his every hate-filled word as the truth, you might want to check the source for his latest rant.
I have it before me: the Aug. 27 issue of Newsweek. In it he quotes Niall Ferguson, whom Savino labels as a “Harvard law professor,” and a “liberal.” If this is an example of Savino’s “research” for a letter, then why believe anything this guy writes? The article clearly states that Ferguson is a Harvard “history” professor, and anyone who has a passing acquaintance with Ferguson knows that calling him a liberal is like calling Reagan a communist.
The RNC followed by the despicable attack on Obama at a time of national tragedy, using what Romney had to know were lies, which speaks volumes about the credibility of the GOP.
I endure Savino’s vile hate each month because I love the Constitution. Must he assault me with his ignorance as well?
KEITH HULL, Garden Valley
Talking about tips ...
While much attention has been given to the 47 percent comments of former Gov. Romney, nothing at all has been mentioned about the most important percentages of the event he was speaking at. I’m referring of course to the percentage of gratuity left to the servers. Did diners off the $50,000 menu leave 20 percent of the bill or just go with the more penurious 14-15 percent sometimes added to the check? Remember restaurant goers, if you can’t afford a conventional tip, you can’t afford to be eating out.
LARRY FERNSWORTH, Boise