|
A sad day in America
Share
Email
Print
CommentRelated
Dear editor, I am writing this letter in response to Ms. Crown’s Sept. 5 letter (“The election choice is clear.”)
It would be my guess that until Gov. Palin was announced as a vice-presidential candidate Ms. Crown knew little or nothing about her. After the announcement of her spot on the ticket, the left-wing media and their surrogates have done nothing but vilify her and her family, as Ms. Crown now has.
It would be my guess that until Gov. Palin was announced as a vice-presidential candidate Ms. Crown knew little or nothing about her. After the announcement of her spot on the ticket, the left-wing media and their surrogates have done nothing but vilify her and her family, as Ms. Crown now has.
I would hope the middle Democrats and Republicans open their eyes and see where the far left is looking to take us.
I am an American first, a conservative second and lastly a Republican.
I am an American first, a conservative second and lastly a Republican.
Earlier this year I met with Doug Pharr, a local attorney then running for Congress. I advised Mr. Pharr that I would support him for Congress, but that there would be no way I would vote for McCain. Ms. Crown’s letter has changed all of that. I will hold my nose and vote for the McCain-Palin ticket just to cancel her vote.
In closing I will quote the last line of Ms. Crown’s letter. “The choice is clear.”
In closing I will quote the last line of Ms. Crown’s letter. “The choice is clear.”
Larry St. Clair / Napa
Join the conversation
Comment guidelines
All comments will be screened and may take several hours to be posted.
• Keep comments clear, concise and focused on the topic in the story.
• Comments exceeding 300 words will not be posted.
• Refrain from personal attacks, degrading comments or remarks that do not add to a constructive dialogue.
• Comments implying suspects in crime-related stories are guilty before they have been proven so in a court of law will be deleted.
• Do not post e-mail addresses or links except for pages on Napavalleyregister.com or government Web sites.
• Comments will not be edited - they will be approved or declined.
• Comments may be used in the print edition of the newspaper.
• If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact dross@napanews.com or bkennedy@napanews.com
For further information on the comment guidelines, click here.
|
|
comment wrote on Sep 25, 2008 12:21 AM:
Hear Ye wrote on Sep 25, 2008 12:48 AM:
Also let's get serious, you were voting for McCain long before you read some random letter to the editor. "
Common Sense wrote on Sep 25, 2008 10:47 AM:
luv1mom wrote on Sep 25, 2008 12:04 PM:
Common Sense wrote on Sep 25, 2008 12:31 PM:
-Wow. If only everyone thought like you, the world would be a better place, right? For liberals, it seems that "tolerance" is only tolerated when it agrees with their political philosophy (kind of like "feminism"). "
amazed wrote on Sep 25, 2008 12:45 PM:
luv1mom wrote on Sep 25, 2008 1:48 PM:
Dwayne wrote on Sep 25, 2008 2:05 PM:
" Isn't the idea to vote FOR a candidate you believe in, rather than AGAINST another? "
That's right.... One's not what we want, and the other one is just plain scary...
Pretty easy choice, really.... "
antipc wrote on Sep 25, 2008 2:28 PM:
glenroy wrote on Sep 25, 2008 2:56 PM:
Frankly…there hasn’t been an Intellectual Liberal on the national scene for decades…..about the time everybody started to realize government social engineering causing more problems that is was solving…. "
luv1mom wrote on Sep 25, 2008 3:00 PM:
Dwayne wrote on Sep 25, 2008 3:23 PM:
" Common Sense: For the far right, it seems that tolerance is only tolerated when it agrees with their political philosophy as well. "
Judith Warner of the (largely liberally-biased) NY Times reported:
"Jonathan Haidt, an associate professor of moral psychology at the University of Virginia, argues in an essay this month, “What Makes People Vote Republican?”, that it’s liberals, in fact, who are dangerously blind.
Haidt has conducted research in which liberals and conservatives were asked to project themselves into the minds of their opponents and answer questions about their moral reasoning.
Conservatives, he said, prove quite adept at thinking like liberals, but liberals are consistently incapable of understanding the conservative point of view. “Liberals feel contempt for the conservative moral view, and that is very, very angering." "
Hear Ye wrote on Sep 25, 2008 4:11 PM:
Thanks for bringing up that article. Some noteworthy quotes that are actually in Haidts essay.
"conservatism is a partially heritable personality trait that predisposes some people to be cognitively inflexible, fond of hierarchy, and inordinately afraid of uncertainty, change, and death. People vote Republican because Republicans offer "moral clarity"—a simple vision of good and evil that activates deep seated fears in much of the electorate."
"We can explain how Republicans exploit frames, phrases, and fears to trick Americans into supporting policies (such as the "war on terror" and repeal of the "death tax") that damage the national interest for partisan advantage."
Haidt is a Liberal and I think you should have read his actual essay before bringing it to all of our attention. It's really an interesting piece and has some good points. "
reader wrote on Sep 25, 2008 6:07 PM:
I also address my above statement to all anti-democrates who cannot address the left without the word "far" preceding it. We democrates are democrates and yes, we are to the "left" of the "right", and proud of it, I might add.
So, if you have to use slander and insults in your statements, to make your point, then it tells me that you are insecure with your opinion and cannot support or articulate an informed, well written statement.
Cornell University did a study on how informed members of both political parties are. Democrates, 2-to1, were able to articulate their political opinions and cite sources and evidence for their reasoning. Republicans more often cited only their own values as a basis for an opinion or they cited faulty information often based on hear-say (this is further supported by Larry's quick, emotional shift of parties based on a opinion letter that he didn't like), and they could not cite sources or evidence for their reasoning. This study was followed by a more recent one last year that showed republicans are more resistent to change and prefer maintaining the status quo; democrates are least resistent to change and do not fear progress or needed change.
Just some tid-bits for foder. "
reader wrote on Sep 25, 2008 6:27 PM:
Have the republicans not put us into this trillion dollar war? Have they not gotten us into this trillion dollar bail-out fiasco? Was it not Clinton who left us with a budget more closely balanced than any other in political memory?
C'mon, state facts and spare us your emotional dribble. "
kevin wrote on Sep 25, 2008 6:51 PM:
Unfortunately for him, he found out that it's not a matter of "framing" an idea, it is the idea itself that Conservatives support.
As in "national defense".
Or maybe "responsibility", "lower taxes", "right to life", "smaller government".
HOO RAH! "
cop105 wrote on Sep 25, 2008 7:34 PM:
antipc wrote on Sep 25, 2008 8:25 PM:
That’s right hypocrites, nothing more, nothing less.
hear ye,
The changes in the meaning of words & phrases actually started from the left… I bet you wouldn’t call yourself a libertarian would you?
reader,
Leftists are so self centered they believe they are centrists… meanwhile they unwittingly push the socialist agenda.
BTW. Having diplomas hanging on the wall doesn’t make one an intellectual. In today’s world it makes one re-educated. "
Hear Ye wrote on Sep 25, 2008 8:53 PM:
That's great and all but my point wasn't so much that the quotes I provided were true but that if you're going to use an essay to try and prove a point you should probably READ the essay first to see what the point of it all is. "
Hear Ye wrote on Sep 25, 2008 9:44 PM:
Well when you factor in the inaccuracy of what you wrote it's really quite easy to be a Democrat. Congrats on making over 250k though, I hope I get there one day. "
Bauhausfan wrote on Sep 25, 2008 9:56 PM:
Over 80% of the country thinks we are going in the wrong direction. Vote for McCain if you want to keep going in the direction of the cliff if you want. As for me I say No to the whole Republican ideology. "
bettye wrote on Sep 25, 2008 10:08 PM:
Raven wrote on Sep 26, 2008 8:23 AM:
dellasumbrella wrote on Sep 26, 2008 10:34 AM:
But when I hear the platform of her church, it is even more abhorrent than that of the Republican party, if not of shooting wolves from the air. The aim of the church is to assume control of country (world?) in the following realms: spiritual, economics, politics, education, media and government, with the ultimate goals of changing the laws of the land, preaching Christianity and devil-casting (and no other religions) in schools, letting God take over the media, and inserting Born-Agains into government so we can "turn this nation the other way around".
Intolerance? No, just not my cup o'tea. "
Sandra wrote on Sep 26, 2008 12:27 PM:
The Obama-Ayers connection: Chicago Annenberg Challenge
If you really want a clear idea of what precedes this article, there is plenty more info. Check out who the key players were in the Chicago Annenberg Challenge ( CAC). Look at the operational arm of the CAC which was called the collaborative. Ayers was the co-chair and co-founder. These guys recruited Obama, and directed the focus of the CAC
What strikes me, is the unwillingness of Obama, or Ayers to discuss their past association beyond "we worked on a committee". It seems with all this wheeling and dealing that went on, that there was probably more to the relationship then we just worked on a committee….Ayers launched his political career at his house.
One of the members of the collaborative was a first to receive funding for a school he was associated with Google:
Obama, Ayers, Karanja — The Chicago Annenberg Challenge and the Chicago School Reform Collaborative
There was nothing illegal, but it kind of falls into the same category as many of the accusations concerning McCain, and the Keating 5, or Palin and trooper gate.
There is enough information available to raise questions., such as:
Why won’t he talk about his time working with Ayers?
The whole Karanja/ Ayers/ Obama connection does give pause for thought….
Why such a fast rise to where he is now?
Why has Obama, during this Presidential race, suddenly moved towards the center from where he used to stand? Has he really changed his views, or is it just political posturing to get elected? "
Sandra wrote on Sep 26, 2008 12:31 PM:
dellasumbrella wrote on Sep 26, 2008 3:38 PM:
reader wrote on Sep 26, 2008 8:28 PM:
Raven wrote on Sep 26, 2008 8:44 PM:
and now Obama's rise is the result of a conspiracy sandra?
and does it surprise you that both candidates have moved to the center on many issues? The going political wisdom is you woo the base with extremes to get the nomination, then woo the moderate independents by moving to the center to get elected... "
Sandra wrote on Sep 26, 2008 10:52 PM:
I said nothing about any conspiracy ....I said I wondered about a few things and would like answers. There is a BIG difference between the two.
McCain has really not changed his stance on much...He has always been considered liberal by most conservative republicans, and as such is not the most popular of conservative candidates. I have always thought of him as fairly moderate. He has a long history to look at and has been pretty consistant in what he stands for and believes in....
Obama has shifted very much to the center during this campaign. It makes me wonder who he really is....there is little history to look at. What histroy I can see concerns me., as it does not reflect the man he is showing to the general public at the present time.
Della, If you truly are concerned about Palin's beliefs, I am surprised you are not concerned about Obamas. I really see little difference in the intensity of belief from either churches, and think either ideolgy imposed upon me would be a very bad thing.
BUT, I do not think either candidate has that agenda in mind. So am quite comfortable with either of them believing what they want for themselves. "
misfit wrote on Sep 27, 2008 7:58 AM:
anticommie wrote on Sep 27, 2008 8:27 AM:
-Ronald Reagan "
Raven wrote on Sep 27, 2008 8:41 AM:
just reading what you wrote sandra...and I am still waiting to find out what this 'black theology' is you keep mentioning... "
glenroy wrote on Sep 27, 2008 5:14 PM:
You libs believe everything you read and everything you hear.....
cop105.....amen bro... "
Raven wrote on Sep 27, 2008 5:42 PM:
kevin wrote on Sep 27, 2008 10:54 PM:
As the media ALWAYS does for the Lib... "
Sandra wrote on Sep 28, 2008 9:44 AM:
Misfit, is your post an example of democratic compassion? "
Sandra wrote on Sep 28, 2008 9:58 AM:
I do not think Mr. St. Clair means anything different that I do. I may be wrong. It just struck me as odd that this is how you interpreted his use of the word.
How you could make that statement about dems vs rep. ....Did you read the original letter, "The Election Choice is Clear"? There was no evidence of the ability to "articulate their political opinions and cite sources and evidence for their reasoning." in that letter. It was a slanted mean spirited diatribe with no basis in fact......
I would think that Mr. St.Clairs letter was reffering to the "FAR" left, as the portion of our society who along with the "FAR" right has trouble articulating much of anything....as evidenced by the letter he was responding to. "
Raven wrote on Sep 28, 2008 10:53 AM:
as far as any religious extremes go, let us not forget the religious extremes on the right, i.e. Bob Jones, Pat Robertson and others....there are extremes on both sides of the aisle "
dellasumbrella wrote on Sep 28, 2008 10:10 PM:
Sandra wrote on Sep 30, 2008 10:18 AM:
I disagree...I have a dear friend who is a black woman...She had opportunities through affirmitive action, used them to her advantage and is a very successful person in her field. Heck she probably makes 5 times what I make.
Black anger? Come on...the opportunities are there. If someone who is a minority does not take advantage of these opportunities it is not because they are being held back because of race. There is definitly an economic element, but that effects all the poor, not just the poor of color.
What I do like about Black theology is the message of rising up and succeeding, but I do not like the message of blaming others as oppressors. This is ludicrous in the U.S.A.
Where Black Theology originated that message of being oppressed because of color may have been valid. It is not valid here.
"Black Anger"....How about "Poor Anger"? We have set up a society that perpetuates welfare for multiple generations...It is not a RACE thing. It is not a COLOR thing, it is an ECONOMIC thing.
I do not like Black Theology because its FOCUS is on being the vitim of white oppressors. The focus is wrong, and perpetuates a myth and attitude this country does not need. It is devisive along racial lines and if that does not worry you...concern you...alarm you...yet Palin's beliefs do? I can only wonder.... "
Raven wrote on Sep 30, 2008 9:13 PM:
or are you saying that blacks are responsible for their own oppression...is that what you meant by saying the 'message of blaming others as oppressors'...
while you may not agree with it, who are you to dismiss the focus of any religious beliefs as invalid or wrong? Many of the world religions have taken as their starting point the oppression of their people by others...look at the first books of the Bible....Moses, Joshua and the old prophets considered the Jews oppressed and their solution was to rise up against their oppressors, with the aid of their God.
the only religious views that bother me are the ones that someone else tries to impose on myself or others....
religion has to be a matter of choice between an individual and his or her vision of what, if any, a divine being they seek. "
Sandra wrote on Oct 1, 2008 10:13 AM:
You ABSOLUTELY do not get my point. I dismiss nothing as wrong. I have repeatedly said that I hold neither candidate in bad light because of their religious views. In fact, my original post had to do with someone holding Palin in bad light because of her religious views.
MY POINT is that if Palin's religion is scrutinized and judged to be bad...then you need to hold Obamas up to the same scrutiny.
If religious views are important to you then you cannot wear blinders concerning Obama's while you denegrate Palin's.
I was addressing these remarks to Dellasumbrella. You obviously jumped into this discussion midstream.
I have my personal opinion about religion in general. It is my PERSONAL opinion, and I would not presume to subject anyone to my views on this matter and expect them to think as I do. I also would expect them not to subject me to theirs. I do not think either candiate would do this.
BUT, Della seems to be making this claim. It seems that you and I agree about personal religious beliefs, so perhaps you should address these comments to her?
As for this, "or are you saying that blacks are responsible for their own oppression...is that what you meant by saying the 'message of blaming others as oppressors'..." The only ones holding Blacks back from the opportunities in this country as far as education and employment is themselves.
As I said it is NOT COLOR, it is ECONOMICS. The poor lack opportunities...it has nothing to do with skin color. "
dellasumbrella wrote on Oct 1, 2008 6:46 PM:
Sandra, you brought up Obama's church when I commented on the STATED INTENTION of Palin's church to insist their beliefs into American politics, economics, education, media, etc., with the ultimate goal of changing the law of the land to follow their beliefs. That is an intolerable imposition of religion into secular life.
Obama's church, as far as I have seen, has no such delusions of grandeur. Therefore, it's approach IS personal to the people who belong to the church. Palin's church goes beyond the personal & spiritual, by their own admission.
I won't address the "why haven't the blacks taken all these opportunities they've been given in the past two generations since the Civil Rights Act." That's way too big and massively complex. We need many books and movies and documentaries to tackle that one. Oh, someone's already done that? "
Sandra wrote on Oct 2, 2008 9:43 AM:
XMAN wrote on Oct 2, 2008 10:35 AM:
Xperson wrote on Oct 2, 2008 5:14 PM:
He is NOT a black American, he is ALSO a white American, so the movement to elect a black man is in error.
I will vote for my party, McCain and his chosen running mate.
Who says ANYONE cannnot be president? AND it is against Federal Law to even state that a woman cannot hold a job because she has children or COULD become preganant, I know, because it happened to me in 1974 when I was turned down for a job at Safeway because they said I had just gotten married and MIGHT have children and they don't hire people who might get pregnant, my WHOLE life could have differed had I been given that decent job as a new bride. Of course I did nothing about this comment, and I went on to do great things and have great jobs, but my alternative then was to get a job at 7-11, wow, what a bummer.
Anyhow, I WILL CANCEL some other voters out because I WILL VOTE my ticket and support my candidate, a man who defended our country, turned down amnesty in a POW camp, THEN served as a state Senator and has had PLENTY of experience to show me that as his main job duty, COMMANDER in CHIEF, that this man will fulfill the duties of the job he will be elected for, despite the spin at the "polls" that are published by the LEFTISTs, our voters will speak their voice at the voting booths...AND DON'T call me on your exit polls, I WILL Slam down the phone. "
Xperson wrote on Oct 2, 2008 5:19 PM:
I hope that you publish ALL comments, democratic or republican, it IS a free country and we do have freedom of speech......obviously if it were vulgar you could screen out vulgarity but if you ONLY publish sympathetic views then you are being communistic in your approach to a neutral press which is a dream. "
Raven wrote on Oct 2, 2008 9:34 PM:
and xperson, you have no right to say anything on the blog here....and since your post appears to have been published, what is all the whoo whoo about, the message is the standard message one gets when you post... "
Sandra wrote on Oct 2, 2008 9:51 PM:
As for someone laying on the ground bleeding...come on...this is not that scenario. This all happened for a reason, and if we do not fix the reason, putting band aids on the wound is just silly. "
Raven wrote on Oct 3, 2008 9:50 AM:
sandra wrote on Oct 3, 2008 2:01 PM:
Raven wrote on Oct 3, 2008 4:38 PM:
kevin wrote on Oct 4, 2008 9:32 AM:
Hear ye wrote on Oct 6, 2008 8:43 AM:
Please do me a favor and explain to me how your vote for McCain will cancel other votes out? As absurd as it is to think that any one vote can cancel out another vote it's even crazier to think that one vote can cancel out multiple votes. "