Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | Home RSS

Questions about editorial

December 2, 2012
The Herald-Star

To the editor:

A bizzaro world, or altered states.

After enjoying a few weeks of rest, it's time for congratulations to cease and for us to get back to work changing this country for the better.

Just to get started, I would feel remiss in my duty if I didn't respond to the dubious thoughts of the editorial board of the Herald-Star and The Weirton Daily Times in the Nov. 8 "Our opinion."

Aside from hiding behind the nebulous title of "Our opinion," thusly avoiding responsibility for your completely erroneous, severely deranged or profoundly ignorant commentary, it should be understood that an unsigned opinion should be valued equally with the author's acceptance of responsibility for his or her comments.

What is it that you have been smoking or drinking to make the following delusional statement: "(President Barack) Obama's re-election Tuesday may set the stage for progress - but only if he is willing to compromise and recognize the mistakes of his first term." Following this twisted view of pretzel logic would force one to buy into the following: "To the loser go the spoils."

Oh, I'm sorry - did I enclose the previous statement in quotation marks? That's not exactly the way it goes, is it?

To be sure, there must be compromise, but this compromise must lean toward the president and the Democrats in order to fulfill the wishes of the American people.

In the recent past, the president has displayed his willingness to compromise even as the Republicans have obstructed as much as they possibly could.

Would you ask for a little back-up? It is as follows:

First is that in the last four years, the filibuster has increased to 300 percent of what it has been since its inception - a completely political, cynical and obviously obstructive strategy.

Second, at a presidential primary debate, the candidates were asked if they would accept a 10-1 cut vs. tax policy on the debt. All declined. The president signaled he would accept a 3-1 deal.

Third, the Affordable Health Care Act was conceived at the Heritage Foundation, supported by Newt Gingrich, enacted by Mitt Romney and supported by nearly all Republicans in the 1990s.

I am positive that the president would have preferred single-payer, or at least the public option, but in an effort to get Republican votes, he compromised and still gathered no Republican votes.

Perhaps the editorial board of this paper should consult the dictionary on the meanings of the following words: democracy, cynicism, hypocrisy, obstruction, insanity, ignorance, intelligence, honesty and integrity.

While I do understand the need to educate and enlighten the many misguided and misinformed tea-partiers who grace the pages of this publication, it should not be necessary to do so among those who should know better. It's almost as if some of these comments are made not as much to provoke thought as to stimulate circulation.

Elections have consequences. Republicans must learn from their mistakes or suffer them in 2014.

Bob Atkinson


I am looking for: