Letters to the editor Jan. 8, 2010
Why is it legal for Reid to employ bribery?
Let’s see, Dr. Paslov says Sen. Reid is using political prowess to hold the health coalition together. I would use different language – bribery. Reid took our tax money – $100 million – and gave it to Sen. Landrieu, and she changed her vote.
Now we learn about the Nebraska deal and the hospital for Sen. Dodd. In the paper, Sen. Reid listed a string of medical groups he says support the health care bill. I checked with the heart and cancer associations. They said such is not the case. They only agree with certain items in the bill, not the entire bill.
Suppose I had $1 million and decided I would give $100 to 1,000 people if they voted for a certain candidate. That is called bribery and I could go to jail.
Is it really within the constitutional framework for Reid to do this? Oh, that’s right, our elected officials are a special class and are allowed to break the law.
Reid should be renamed The Hammer. Hopefully, we will send him back to Searchlight where he can dance.
I am not willing to support the health care reform bill as it has been presented both by the House and the Senate. An obvious attempt to pass something is not in the best interests of our country and is totally unacceptable. The time to fix what is wrong is now – not when it becomes law and will adversely affect Americans and entangle Congress once again.
Congress should be able to dedicate time and energy to other life-threatening issues – the war, national security, and illegal immigration. A successful health care reform would be acceptable to both political parties, thus the people they represent. There is something seriously wrong when there is such strong disagreement. This is still America where compromise can be achieved. Or is it?
I do not believe America should condone socialized medicine. I do not believe in providing free medical services to illegals as we do today – doctors and emergency rooms having to treat all without asking questions as to legal status and the ability to pay. Yes, we need health reform, but the current bill is not the reform America needs. Forcing people to buy insurance is unconstitutional. Taxing people who refuse to buy insurance is just not right. And the deficit will not be adversely affected?
My question is why was Congress so anxious to vote before the Christmas break? What were they afraid of?
Thank you for all the beautiful Christmas memories that were shared by your readers. I enjoyed reading them very much. But, I must tell you they are not “holiday” memories – they are Christmas memories.
Christmas is not a holiday, it is the day we celebrate the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ. Don’t leave Christ out of Christmas. He is the reason for the season.
Diane Sawyer replaced Charlie Gibson on ABC evening news. As a conservative, I am troubled by this. One liberal replacing another isn’t anything to get excited about. Looking at the three major networks – NBC’s Brian Williams, CBS’s Katie Couric, and now Diane at ABC. I ask, is this balanced, unbiased reporting?
If the three networks employed Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly, would this be balanced and fair? Of course not, but that’s the current situation, and it’s called the 6 o’clock evening news.
The point is, when watching Fox News, you’re aware the reporting slants to the right, and when watching MSNBC, you’re aware it slants to the left, but when watching the big three, you assume it’s fair and unbiased – hardly the case. These three have never met a Democratic president they wouldn’t vote for.
Maybe the Democrats have it right preaching the Fairness Doctrine. We should insist the networks hire equal splits between Dems and Republicans in all their news departments. I think you would see a new twist in the news called unbiased journalism.
Sadly, I don’t think that’s what they have in mind when they speak of the doctrine. It’s more for silencing those who oppose, and for pushing the liberal message.
Sounds like Socialism.