I thought I would share my LTE to everyone. I sent it to the Chicago Tribune. Feel free to borrow ideas and phrases if you want, especially this part (which I'm particularly proud of): "Bush complains about judges that legislate from the bench, but he's judging and legislating from the Oval Office. Bush opposes checks and balances. We need a Democratic Congress in 06 to keep Bush in check and put Washington back in balance."
Last night in his State of the Union adress the President used rhetorically trickery to mask a highly partisan speech. The speech was littered with straw men and false dichotomies. Indeed, the main theme of the first part of the speech is a principal example. You're either for "free" (free to pollute and abuse) trade with no regard whatsoever to advancing environmental and labor justice or you're a "protectionist"? You either support a neocon, adventurist foreign policy or you're an "isolationist"? Give me a break. These are false dichotomies set up to falsely smear opponents as isolationist or protectionist.
The President says he welcomes criticism on the Iraq War, but in reality he and the partisans of the Republican Party categorize all dissent as irresponsible and defeatist. Congressman Murtha's recent calls for a change of course in Iraq can only be described as constructive criticism from a patriot that wants to see America do better. Yet Murhta's proposals were spun as "cut and run" by the President and Republicans in the House. They proposed a straw man resolution calling for immediate withdrawal and cut off debate on Murtha's real world proposals, then sent up Congresswoman Jean Schmidt to call him a coward. Now I read that some groups are forming to spit on Murtha's war record the way they spit on John Kerry's Vietnam service.
The President's State of the Union speech was no change from the disingenous, dishonest and partisan nature of his presidency as a whole. He used fear and Orwellian linguistic tricks to spin the bipartisan opposition to illegal domestic surveillance and claims of unprecedented Presidential authority into partisan opposition to terrorist surveillance. But those in both parties who question his illegal program support surveiling terrorists and protecting liberty. We can and must do both. When the President needs a law like FISA changed he needs to go to Congress. We then have a system of judicial review to check if our laws are constitutional. Bush complains about judges that legislate from the bench, but he's judging and legislating from the Oval Office. Bush opposes checks and balances. We need a Democratic Congress in 06 to keep Bush in check and put Washington back in balance.