HOW WE CAME TO MAKE THAT ENDORSEMENT"Published October 21, 2004
"I have not written much in this column about the Editorial and Commentary pages of the Tribune--the opinion pages. There is such a thing as being too close to your subject and, after having been in charge of those pages for more than nine years, I was too close.
"But after the furious response by so many readers this week to Sunday's presidential endorsement editorial--there easily were at least 2,400 communications to editors, reporters, customer service representatives and the letters editor--it clearly is time to end that self-imposed moratorium."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
and my response:
Not only am I amazed at what the Tribune editorial staff did, I am aghast. For years, I have subscribed to the Tribune. I am one of those who canceled his subscription, and promised never to purchase your paper again.
A little personal history. I am financially conservative, socially moderate and liberal about protecting our constitution and our hard-fought rights. I financially support mainly republican candidates, and I voted for Bush four years ago. I have deeply regretted my choice ever since.
Not only was this vacationing president already one of the worst in history before 9/11, he pretended to run as a uniter, only to be the most divisive, objectionable, religion -driven president in my short 47 years of life.
What did Sec. O'Neill say about him? Richard Clarke? George Tenet? Much of the CIA, not to mention many in military leadership roles, before they were forced out?
Did you forget who actually caused the attacks on 9/11, for the moment ignoring the total failure of Condi Rice to take this threat seriously? Saudi pilots, trained in Afghan and Pakistani schools, emboldened by Osama bin Laden. Do YOU see any Iraq connection there, even now? 1,100 American lives later?
So, we sneak out the bin Laden family, we ignore and black out all references to the Sauds, and we invade - - Iraq.
WMD, Nukes, 45 minutes until they attack us, and AQ presence. That was the sales pitch for invading a sovereign country. And like many sales pitches, it was all false.
Even worse, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld deliberately antagonized every country outside of the UK to such extremes, that when we were forced, hat in hand, to return and ask for their help, their response was predictable. Bush and Co. have a lot of 'spainin to do, Lucy.
Let's move to the domestic side.
This month's Scientific American has a brilliant story about how our missile defense is worse than useless. Yet, we are spending tens of billions to install it, even though most components needed to make it work don't even exist. Not only do we not know whether those components can be made to work, for those that do exist, they have NEVER BEEN TESTED.
Mr. Wycliffe, please sit back and think for a moment. A mid flight, outer-space directed, defense system, nothing more than a modern Maginot line, with no existing opponent against whom this system will work.
Are we supposed to ask future enemies, "Hey, please, could you launch your attack from central Russia or China, and make sure to use old-fashioned, high arc, ballistic missiles that fly over Alaska? Please? Pretty please? Oh, And be sure to warn us so we can turn on our detectors and point them in the right direction." Right.
Do we expect them to NOT develop low flying supersonic cruise missiles, (Russia, India, China - all have variants in flight testing) or to NOT to launch from subs or ships just off our shore in low arc trajectories? Or to ignore the most simple countermeasures? If they don't accept our "rules" for attacking us, this Alaskan based system is useless. What about simply shipping a nuke or dirty bomb by container? We don't check 99% of them anyway. Yet, I get to take my shoes off each time I fly.
Environmental rules are rolled back. Mercury standards are worse now than 5 years ago. Funding for children and needy is cut, while the top taxpayers get a huge cut.
Our economy is in a shambles. Employment figures are palatable only because so many are no longer counted on the rolls of "unemployed, seeking work". I do not recall any week this year without some large corporation announcing job cuts, or transfers of divisions to India or elsewhere. I also do not recall any corporation announcing any massive hiring program.
The Patriot Act, once sold as patriotic, is turning out to be a boondoggle. Not only is Ashcroft ordering its use in non-terror prosecutions, but the invasiveness and unconstitutional impact is only now being felt. Which raises another problem. John Ashcroft. He is even worse than Janet Reno, and that is a low standard indeed.
Lastly, stem cell research. Science in general. For the first time in our history, foreign scientists are not attracted by our open, freewheeling approach. That is because religious bigots have, time and time again, been placed in charge of our scientific research and decision-making. This is unforgivable. Just how many Nobel winners signed a document condemning this administration? Would you suspect that they may be onto something?
As part of my conservatism, I believe that our constitution offers freedom FROM religion as much as it offers freedom of religion. Unfortunately, that may no longer be the case if Bush wins a second term.
I am so upset by your paper's endorsement that you will never again have me as a subscriber. Let me put it this way. I am livid. Your attempt to "explain" the Tribune's decision was sent to me this morning by a GOP friend. She, too, is upset, and absolutely dislikes Bush, but her disdain of your decision is just slightly less irate than mine. When her time comes to renew, she will simply let her subscription lapse.
I have read over your "explanation" three times, and still have yet to see any meat on the bones. As explanations go, even the most brain-dead Bush supporter would have to rationalize that something of substance existed in your article. I can't find it. Please let us onto the secret, if there is one.
Mr. Dold has his politics, has the right to choose, vote, and direct editorial decisions. I, too, have a right. And that is to stop buying your paper, and to notify local advertisers in my area, that if they advertise in your paper, I will not purchase anything from them. I seriously doubt Dold reads what his former customers have to say. I also doubt that this letter will do any good. But it is cathartic. You took the effort to try to explain away the perverse decision made by your paper. I am making the effort to show why it was the wrong decision. But, my hard earned money will not bless your till again.
Sincerely,
XXXXXX
XXXXXX
XXXXXX
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
