Romney is out of touch with public
I will vote for President Obama in November. According to Mitt Romney, that makes me one of the 47 percent of Americans who is a government-dependent deadbeat. He wants people like me to accept personal responsibility and become self-sufficient. I was deeply offended by this demeaning statement.
I was born into what today would be considered poverty, despite the fact that my father held down a full-time job and worked very hard. Other than taking advantage of the GI Bill for college tuition assistance, and receiving other veterans’ benefits that I earned in the military service of my country, I never asked the government for anything.
I was self-employed for more than 30 years before I retired last year. I paid 15.3 percent of my income to the federal government for my Social Security and Medicare, not to mention the income taxes I paid. There was no guaranteed income. No one paid me if I had to miss work for illness, family emergencies or vacations (which were few and far between).
Despite this, I reject the myth of the rugged individual. I, like everyone else in our country, have survived only because of the assistance of many, many other people.
I prefer the leadership of someone who has “walked the walk” from poverty and obscurity to what I consider the ultimate individual American achievement. The good governor has not “walked the walk,” and his latest gaffe demonstrates, yet again, that he is out of touch with the life of hard work that most Americans lead.
Think carefully before you blindly vote Republican this November.
LOREN H. HOUK
Of the 47 percent of Americans who pay no federal income taxes, the vast majority are either retirees, who paid income taxes for many years; the working poor, who do not earn enough to have to pay income taxes; the disabled; or members of the military.
They, like all other citizens, are entitled to health care, food and housing.
They also are entitled to compassion and respect – two more things that Mitt Romney clearly thinks they do not deserve.
The mainstream media should be doing investigatory reporting and exposing corruption to bring guilty people to justice, as was the case in Watergate. However, we have a mainstream media that intentionally hid incriminating facts about President Obama so that he could be elected.
Now we are seeing the failure of his foreign policies, with our ambassador to Libya being murdered and riots throughout the Middle East. His socialistic domestic policies also have failed, resulting in mounting debt and joblessness.
However, the press was recently caught on a hot microphone before a press conference with Mitt Romney conspiring to all ask the same question: Didn’t Romney regret his criticism of Obama regarding our embassy apologizing for free speech? The press asked Romney the same question six times, just to try to make him look bad or back down. I was impressed that Romney stood for what is right and made the press look like a bunch of fools.
CNN political reporter Peter Hamby tweeted recently about Wisconsin being a battleground state and that Obama would be campaigning there. Hamby provided a link on this tweet to an Obama campaign donation page. This shows me that the mainstream media, instead of conducting objective reporting, are a propaganda arm for Obama and the far-left extremist Democrats.
I resent a group referring to itself as “values voters,” implying that people who are not members of their particular group somehow have no values (“GOP activists ask: Why isn’t Romney ahead?” Sept. 16 Eagle). Who handed these people ownership of “values”?
My values may differ greatly from this fringe group’s values, but trust me, I have values. And at the heart of my values lies the Great Commandment that Jesus gave us: Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your might and your neighbor as yourself.
And “neighbor” in my value system is interpreted broadly to include everybody – gay or straight, people of all ethnicities and religions, those who speak English only and those fluent in a different language (whether or not they are U.S. citizens), people without an abundance of economic resources, etc.
I will be voting with these values in mind in November.
LEIGH CARLSON BURGESS
Davis Merritt’s analysis and predictions for the upcoming debates were right on (“Voters should benefit from debate changes,” Sept. 18 Opinion). I do not usually agree with his commentaries, although I commend The Eagle for publishing them, albeit infrequently.
In expressing his concerns as to the potential for these debates, Merritt failed to acknowledge that none of the moderators for the upcoming confrontations could in any way be described as impartial. As a result, I fear that the period of time given to these moderators to “guide further discussion” will be laughable.