Friday, November 09, 2007

Chronicle Editor Does Not Understand the Purpose of Elections


Willimantic Chronicle Editor Charlie Ryan has this strict policy that his newspaper does not endorse candidates. But then again he finds ways to kinda endorse them anyways.

For example, here we are the Friday after the election and interestingly enough Ryan wrote an editorial entitled “It was time for change in Coventry” -- endorsing the Coventry Democrats.

Most papers endorse candidates before the election.

I really don’t understand the intended purpose of this editorial. While Ryan does reluctantly concede the Republican Town Council held the line on taxes, he faults them for not spending enough. Ryan rattles off a list of things that went unfunded such as some sidewalks and of course money for the bottomless pit of education.

Now I have never met Ryan but I will wager he is no fool. I am guessing he is intelligent enough to realize that spending has a lot to do with how much taxes are. And yet reading this editorial you would think that government could spend as much as it wished, give everyone everything they asked for, -- and then somehow have no tax increase.

The editorial’s premise is that spending and stable taxes are not mutually exclusive.

But never mind that. What really bugs me is the other premise of this editorial which is that the Republicans should have done exactly what the Democrats would have done under the same situation.

Now why should they have done that?

I am reminded what former RNC Chairman Haley Barbour was of fond saying "the Republican Party is the conservative party and the Democrat Party is the liberal party".
Consider when the Coventry voter walked into the polls Tuesday he had a real choice. He could choose to re-elect the party that was thrifty or he could chose to vote for the party that was liberal with taxpayer money.

The voter picked the liberal party on Tuesday and now he will get those sidewalks, more money for education as well of lots and lots of other goodies which Ryan thinks is so important.

And voters will also get a tax increase. You can bet the ranch on that. That’s the trade-off and that’s the way it should be.

I am continually annoyed with media-liberals like Ryan who think that my party, the Republican, conservative party should be a replica, a mirror-image of the liberal Democrat party.

Why do we need two Democrat parties?

Isn't one liberal Democrat party enough?

Without real choices there is no point in having elections at all.

3 Comments:

Blogger PoorGrrl said...

Mac, liberals, in and out of the media, think the Republican party and every other party should be a mirror image of them because they're socialists who just don't believe in freedom of thought. To them, "diversity" means a room full of different people--gay, straight, black, white, rich, poor, male, female--who are ALL liberal. It's a diversity of opinion holders, NOT diversity of opinion. And that's why they also don't really believe in free elections. They're STILL griping about their defeat in 2000. Sore losers.

November 13, 2007 8:57 AM  
Blogger mccommas said...

The way you worded that made me laugh. It’s just so true!

There is no place in their world for me or you.

They think the most superficial details about individuals are paramount. Yet whats in the brain does not count.

I have to get around counting the penises (what the plural of penis? Penisi?) vs. vaginas on both tickets.

I know I am not going to be able to do it without giggling :)

I know we had more Hispanics (they had one I know of) but we might have also had more women.

The Democrats went on and on and on about how diverse their ticket was. Actually besides one person I think they were all white. Funny at the Republican nominating caucus not once did any of this come up. People ran on their ideas.

Those that won -- it was a random bag of males, females, etc.
But I think we had more chicks than ----. That will have to wait though. I have a test in a few hours.

November 13, 2007 10:30 AM  
Blogger PoorGrrl said...

"There is no place in their world for me or you." So true; so sad. The very people who shout the loudest about inclusion are the same people who turn, with shameless visciousness, on minorities who don't parrot the line they've written for us. Ideas mean nothing to them, only power. They don't want us in their world and I don't want them in ours, either.

November 13, 2007 1:26 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Web Counter
Free Counter