Weekly musings on the arts and current events.

Sunday, February 1, 2009

Letter to House Minority whip Eric Cantor

Dear Congressman:

As a centrist voter and a Viet Nam veteran who proudly flies an American Flag, I look to both major parties to maintain balance and wisdom in guiding our country. In the last few years we have witnessed a sad succession of failures by the Republicans as they abandoned fiscal conservatism in favor of pampering their base. Now I read that you, Mr. Cantor, concur with Rush Limbaugh in hoping that our new president will fail. I am deeply disappointed in your lack of patriotism. In the darkest days of the Bush incompetency, I never wished for failure…not while we’re at war in the Middle East and real people are facing calamity occasioned by health care issues, job losses, and natural disasters at home.

It used to be that a new president was granted a honeymoon by Congress, but apparently those days are gone. The lock-step vote against the stimulus package made it abundantly clear that partisanship trumps patriotism. I know, I know, Pelosi et al were guilty of similarly misplaced priorities. But they’re the majority and their role and responsibilities are clear. What is not clear is whether we have a loyal opposition. Stonewalling to placate a talk radio host hardly qualifies while the economy bleeds jobs and our soldiers bleed blood.

So stop fooling around. We need greatness.

Sincerely,

(sig) R. Lavin

4 comments:

Lorna said...

Dear Tall Teacher,

I am presuming that you do not listen to Rush Limbaugh and do not know his style and history, but correct me if I am wrong. By “listening” I mean, not that you listened once and changed the station, but that you listened and stuck around for a week or so to know what he was about.

I began listening to Limbaugh since about 1989, when he began, and I know his history, his style, and his acumen in the broadcasting world, which has grown considerably with each attack from the Left and being shouted down in his own tv show by a lefty audience that went there to shut him down. Freedom of speech is theirs, not anyone else's.

I was listening when he explained this issue of Obama failing, but the news media does not mention the context, so I will.

First of all. Rush Limbaugh knows that if Obama fails, this country becomes dangerously vulnerable on many fronts. As much as he disrespects Obama, he/Rush would not wish him to fail in his duty to protect the United States of America.

Second, Rush Limbaugh was very explicit in saying that since he opposes the socialist, tax-and-spend propositions of President Obama, he certainly does not hope that Obama is successful in carrying THOSE PLANS out.

Rush Limbaugh added that if Obama were to see the light and realize that more taxing, more restrictions, and more government bureaucracy always drowns the economy, and if he opts not to go in that direction, then he/Limbaugh wishes Obama well.

However, (and this was the thrust of what he said prior) since neither he nor any of the Republicans believe that Obama's and the Left's tax-and-spend-and create more bureaucracy mission is neither wise or prudent, then he cannot support those plans and in fact hopes that those plans fail, and consequently, that Obama fails in instituting those plans.

Rush's thrust was that the Republicans were being hypocritical in saying that they hoped that Obama succeeds when in fact two months ago they were fighting tooth and nail to keep him from winning the presidency.The news media did not want to include the fine points; it did not serve their mission to discredit him.

You could say that the Bush administration also spent a lot, and that is absolutely true and that (and Amnesty) is the main criticism and disappointment that we in the Republican party have of him: he spent like a liberal; he did not follow conservative principles.

We are grateful that he kept America from terrorist attacks since 2001, however, and hold him in high esteem for that job well done.

Please remember that most of the media, which is predominantly liberal, misrepresent him or misquote him on purpose to marginalize him. They have failed for about 20 years in that endeavor.

This last scheme of their is just another in a long attempt to get rid of the opposition.

Lorna

TallTchr said...

You're right; I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh. But my letter was to Eric Cantor and my disappointment is with the Republicans in Congress who have acknowledged, willy-nilly, that the nation is in an economic crisis, but have not advanced any ideas to fix it other than more tax cuts for the rich. While none of us knows what's going on behind closed doors in Washington, I think the stimulus package will be modified in the Senate with GOP input. The House Democrats will be obliged to support the final bill, but the tragedy is that the House Republicans are allowing themselves to be marginalized. BTW, I don't buy that liberal-media-bias line. Rupert Murdoch is hardly a voice in the wilderness.

Lorna said...

Rupert Murdoch is the only voice in that particular wilderness.

Rush Limbaugh is right. Just because he is entertaining and frequently funny does not make him wrong. His longevity in the business where others have failed (and where all lefties have failed) is due to his ability to be on target with accuracy in the high 90's plus entertaining while sharing the news and commentary.

If you blame Cantor for supporting the views given by Limbaugh, then you are indeed making a negative comment about him/Limbaugh.

If Mr. Obama has his way, government will be into everything. As it is now, it's into telling the auto industry what to do and how to do it. That is what government does.

You see that as an ok thing; I see dangers in that kind of intrusion.

~Lorna

Paula Slade said...

I was appalled the other day when a group of governors were debating whether to accept the stimulus funds as they were more concerned with appearances and transparency versus their constituents needs. Just a month ago I had high hopes that both sides would unite for a common good. It seems it may take a while longer.