Today's Weather

Click for Sierra Vista, Arizona Forecast

Column reveals the poor policy ideas of Democrats

Published/Last Modified on Monday, Aug 25, 2008 - 05:23:09 am MST

Font Size

To the Editor:

Thanks for the Point-Counterpoint (Aug. 17) feature on foreign affairs in which Democrat Bob Bland exemplified the out-of-touch policies that have led Congress to even lower polling numbers than a wartime president.

With every sentence of Bland’s viewpoint, I cringed at the void of reason. This seems to be a pattern with the Democrats. Nancy Pelosi’s new book so suffered the same lack of sound reasoning that it only sold about 6,000 copies in its first two weeks. It’s amazing the speaker of the House can write a book that bad, but Bland followed in fine form and is wrong in so many ways I just don’t know which of his neo-Trotskian Obamaphile party line ideas to attack first.

His basic viewpoints on foreign policy seem to be as follows: Because we are wealthy and we use lots of oil and we don’t give our wealth away, we are bad. Because we’re 5 percent of the world’s population and we pay 25 percent of the United Nations’ bills, we’re not paying our share, we are bad. Because we were attacked by religious zealots and we wanted to counter the vast corrupt ideology and volatile dictatorships with or without the support of the French, Russian, Germans or Chinese that were getting oil-for-food payoffs, we are bad.

Because we won in Iraq, we are bad. Because we helped show the true face of al-Qaida, where polls a year ago showed 70 percent support for bin Laden now show 4 percent, we are bad.

Because Libya gave up their nuclear weapons program when we invaded Iraq, we are bad. Because we’ve pressured North Korea to give up their nuclear weapons program, we are bad. Because we didn’t attack Pakistan and go after bin Laden, we are bad.

We’re also supposed to support Obama’s Global Poverty Act and give away $845 billion to poor nations by 2015.

And finally, we should let Obama talk tough with Iran. The Ayatollahs know that successful negotiation is done from a position of strength, not weakness. That’s why they ignore the Europeans.

This really makes me wonder about Obama as he cuts back on the military to fund his vast array of promised social programs.

This year, the Democrats should be 20 points ahead. Features like this only point out their inept ideas and why the race is nearly tied.

Neil Barrett

Sierra Vista

Print this story Email this story

Font Size

Use the form below to post a brief comment to this story, or respond to other readers. Please use the word count tool to assist you in keeping your remarks to 100 words or fewer.
Comments appear once they are approved. Your thoughtful contribution to the online discussion is appreciated.

To Frank wrote on Aug 31, 2008 6:25 PM:

" And what has Obama done? "

Ed wrote on Aug 31, 2008 12:38 PM:

" Mr. Barrett, we won the war in Iraq? That's awesome! It's so kind of you to let us all know, as no one else seems capable of informing us what is going on. Man, that's great news! "

Frank wrote on Aug 31, 2008 12:30 PM:

" Think - The major differences between Bush/McCain and Obama are that the latter has a great intellect, judgment, and the temperment to be a great leader. Look at what Bush has done to this Nation. McCain's temperment and intellect have always been at issue and he has just displayed his poor judgment by selecting Governor Palin to be VP. "

Winston Smith wrote on Aug 30, 2008 10:34 PM:

" Somehow I value Susan Eisenhower and the ObamaCons opinion more than Mr Barretts. The United States has fallen into the hands of the Military Industrial Complex and we can not resstore our Democracy by leaving the NeoCons in the Republican Party. "

Think wrote on Aug 28, 2008 2:15 PM:

" Obama is the same as Bush. Neither had a job before politics. Bush was a governor, Obama has 3 years experience in making speeches as a junior U.S. Senator. McCain served his country honorably, married well (USC cheerleaders rule!)and has a sense of humor. He's also crossed party lines to try to do the right thing for America. Something Bushy and Obambi have not. Michelle IS a sourpuss. Cyndi has spent more time doing good things in Africa than both Obamas together. She also worked with Mother Teresa. What has Obama done other than collect a check? "

Joe wrote on Aug 28, 2008 10:06 AM:

" Mr. Barrett, if you have never heard of Sean Hannity, then you are out of touch. He also has a daily radio show and writes right-wing commentary. It's okay though, you're not missing much. I have to agree with Frank in his original post that you sound remarkably like Hannity.. Just a coincidence, I'm sure. "

hmmm wrote on Aug 28, 2008 5:16 AM:

" Bush has Vetoed only 8 bills from the 110th Congress. The fewest number of Vetos since Harding was President. This indicates that Congress hasn't passed many bills at all and is ineffective. Seems Congress is more "out of touch" then you give them credit for. Maybe this is why their approval rating is so low. Maybe when they get back from their 5 week vacation we might see some actions? Not likely.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0801767.html "

Seriously wrote on Aug 27, 2008 12:33 PM:

" Neil, I don't think the congress is as "out of touch" as the President who keep vetoing the bills they pass. What has so many people unhappy is that the congress currently lacks the ability to successfully override the president's veto unless they are trying to secure votes from former military personnel.

What Mr. Bland writes does not interest me--he is local, but I can assure you that the Democrats are the ones who are in touch with reality, not the Republicans. "

Neil Barrett wrote on Aug 26, 2008 4:27 PM:

" I don't have TV. I've never heard of Sean Hannity. The comments are my own.

What are my specific errors and I'll try to answer.

I did counter Bland's thoughts in his P-CP piece. Reread the piece and you'll see I countered his arguments in the same order. My "we are bad" section counters his analogy to the small town. "

Lou wrote on Aug 26, 2008 2:05 PM:

" The comments made by Neil Barrett are all speculative and subjective. Not actual facts. While a few figures have been thrown out, they are argumentative and the prognostications are pure conjecture, similar to; talking points. "

Brian wrote on Aug 26, 2008 7:27 AM:

" talking points or not, what's factually in error? Point out the specific wrongs in the statements. "

Winston Smith wrote on Aug 25, 2008 10:14 PM:

" Talking Point #1
Talking Point #2
Talking Point #3
Presenting this as an opinion is an insult "

Frank wrote on Aug 25, 2008 10:09 PM:

" To - to Frank - Not correct, Neil Barrett's comments parroted typical Fox talking points, not what Bland outlined in his piece. Barrett countered Bland's position. You obviously don't know the difference. Cranky pants McCain is unfit to be President. "

to Frank wrote on Aug 25, 2008 6:45 PM:

" Wrong again, it was Bob Bland's Point-Counterpoint (Aug. 17) feature on foreign affairs that provided the talking points. "

JTB wrote on Aug 25, 2008 6:36 PM:

" Good letter. It must be infurating to Frank that Obama isn't winning by 20 points and that as people get to know Obama, they don't trust him. McCain will win. "

Frank wrote on Aug 25, 2008 9:34 AM:

" Good try Neil, but it all sounds strangely familiar to Sean Hannity and the Fox talking points. It must be infuriating for you folks to visualize that Barack Obama will be elected the next President of the United States. We don't need another 4 years of McSame. "