How can people still watch the Fox News Channel with the idea that they are receiving "fair and balanced" news? Nonetheless, a letter sent to The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, as well as many other letters, are nothing more and nothing less than Fox News Channel lying – I mean - talking points.
A truly distinctive feature about the above mentioned letter is how few words are used to spread ridiculous misinformation. There is a ton of misinformation packed into this 91 word letter.
The premise of the letter, which, in itself is "understandable" from a Conservative's point of view, is that HR1: The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 includes too much spending. This is the ideological difference between Conservatives and Progressives and it's a logical position for a Conservative to take.
The writer, however, goes well beyond expressing an ideological difference in how government should help those in need.
The writer accuses the "political left" of possessing a "mean spirited "our way or no way" attitude".
Whatever one believes happened on September 11, 2001 is irrelevant in comparison to a remark made by The Front Man shortly afterwards.
On July 17, 2002, Bush said, "Almost every day is a new phase, in some ways, because we're reminding different countries which may be susceptible to Al Qaeda, that you're either with us or against us. And so we're constantly working on bolstering confidence amongst some nations which may sometimes forget that either you're with us or you're with the terrorists."
Does the writer consider the above statement a warm invitation to nations of the world to help us track down and capture whoever it was that carried out the acts of 9/11? The statement seems more like "you will fight with us or you will fight us". Rather than a warm invitation to help us, it's a threat, and a "mean spirited" one at that.
The writer does admit that the stimulus package vote in The House was a bipartisan vote. He reminds us that, not only did all Republicans vote against the stimulus bill, but 11 Democrats voted against it as well. His reasoning, it appears, is that the partisan aspect of the vote was that only Democrats voted for the bill.
At first blush, one might agree with the writer. One can believe a conspiracy that Democrats met before the vote ever came up and decided that they wouldn't even read the bill. They decided that they would vote for it in lock step just because it's a bill originating from the office of a Democratic (that's Democratic, not Democrat) President.
But wait! How could that be? As the writer tells us, 11 Democrats voted against the bill. On the other hand, not one Republican voted for it.
Rather than looking at the "No" vote as the place where real bipartisanship resides, let's look at the result as showing that Democrats actually read bills and make their own decisions. They don't march in lockstep as a party.
On the other hand, not one Republican saw enough benefit in the bill to give it a chance and at least make a move toward getting the nation out of its present economic tomb before that tomb is hermetically sealed. Are the Republicans still wearing those brown shirts and marching in lockstep?
This difference between Republicans and Democrats isn't new, of course. That's if we are to believe that there are Republicans and Democrats and that this isn't all theater substituting for politics.
Let's hold our collective nose and go into the way back machine. Let's revisit the years before Obama. Let's look at voting records.