Republicans for Reid? What bizarre irrationality
To the editor:
John L. Smith’s Friday column listing the latest Republican “stalwarts” who have endorsed Harry Reid has pushed me to the breaking point. I have had enough with this “Republicans for Reid” nonsense.
If the Republican Party is what it claims to be — a party devoted to limited government, fiscal responsibility, a strong national defense — then no actual Republican could in good conscience endorse Harry Reid for dog catcher, let alone a position of any sort in the U.S. Senate. His ability and willingness to bribe Nevada voters is one of the chief reasons he ought to be ousted. His ability to imitate a bread-and-circus-dealing Roman Emperor is not a reason to retain him.
If a Republican cannot support Sharron Angle, that’s fine, I can respect that. He should either skip the Senate race, or vote Libertarian or none of the above.
But to actively endorse and encourage Harry Reid’s re-election, so that he can continue to advance an irresponsible and harmful agenda in a powerful position in the Senate, is the height of bizarre irrationality.
Just call yourselves Democrats, already.
Alexander Marriott
Las Vegas
More RINOs
To the editor:
Republican establishment insider Sig Rogich theorizes the failure to re-elect Democrat Sen. Harry Reid would be “catastrophic for Southern Nevada.” What it would be to Northern Nevada is apparently not worth speculating.
Mr. Rogich, what does it matter if a man like you retains profitable political influence by close association with Sen. Reid if the leftist Democrats destroy American constitutional government? Can you not see the big picture?
I have lost all respect for Mr. Rogich, the poster boy of RINO Republicans. Mr. Rogich has repudiated all the keystone values and institutions that Ronald Reagan knew made the United States “the shining city on a hill.”
ART RADER
Las Vegas
Teacher riots?
To the editor:
Two stories in Saturday’s Review-Journal piqued my interest.
One story by The Associated Press described how French public-sector union employees are reacting to a new French initiative to raise the retirement age just two years to 62, causing riots.
The other was the Saturday Review-Journal editorial describing how just three public-employee unions have generated $171.5 million to elect Democrat candidates, presumably to keep their salaries and pensions rising.
The U.S. government and many state governments are broke. When China and the Saudis stop buying our debt and there is no longer money to fund these inflated salaries and pensions, does this mean that there will be riots in U.S. cities, led by police, firefighters, teachers, FBI, TSA and other public employees? If so, who protects the rest of us?
Think about it. Do Democrats really have your best interests in mind?
Skip Blough
North Las Vegas
Nanny State
To the editor:
Some time ago, it was decided by my government what kind of light bulbs I will be allowed to buy for use in my private home in the not too distant future.
More recently, my masters decided that I, and everyone else, must buy medical insurance. I have no doubt in my mind that this is going to directly increase my medical insurance costs, and result in me subsidizing medical insurance for others.
If this is allowed to go on unimpeded, I fully expect that the government will take over this aspect of our society, once they have eliminated the insurance companies by bankrupting them with profit-destroying regulation.
Now I get a letter from the trash company, Republic Services, congratulating me because my neighborhood has been selected to participate in the “Clean Community and Enhanced Recycling Program.” The bottom line: My masters have now decided what kind of trash can I can use.
What is next? The government regulates toilet paper?
I am truly afraid.
Don Dieckmann
Henderson
On the bench
To the editor:
Take your pick and tell me which is more frightening:
1) District Court judges being appointed by a judicial selection committee.
2) Having your case heard by a judge who had nearly 20 percent of his primary election campaign funds donated by opposing counsel’s law firm and family members?
Now that’s scary.
P. Apicella
Las Vegas
Closet capitalist
To the editor:
I often read Geoff Schumacher’s columns, as he is a reasonable liberal who writes well and avoids the hysteria of a Paul Krugman, for example.
In his most recent column, Mr. Schumacher describes Sharron Angle as a closet socialist because she derided Harry Reid’s wealth accumulation as a public servant. But he inadvertently makes her point by slipping in the word “connections.” Mr. Schumacher suggests quite casually that it is OK for elected politicians to use special connections obtained as a public official to enrich themselves.
No, it’s not. We are sick and tired of elected officials engaging with special connections in the private sector to enrich themselves.
This is the behavior we expect from free-market capitalists who are at liberty to engage in any legal activity that maximizes their opportunities and profit.
Clearly, Mr. Schumacher is a closet capitalist.
Bud Buehler
Las Vegas