If Bush has nothing to hide about Abramoff, why is he hiding it? We should ask that letter every day in every newspaper in America. Who wants to write a letter? You? and you? and you? That's a good start.
In other editorials, Iran is a REAL nuclear threat, but have we already exhausted ourselves on a fake one? Republicans are hypocrites (who wulda thunk it?) in Florida, and Boehner is not exactly a "fresh face."
The Daily Pulse is still looking for a few new front-page contributors, particularly to do a regular letters column, and some alternative paper columns. The weekends interpretation from an Italian paper was GREAT, and I'd welcome anybody interested in doing the same elsewhere.
Also, a thought for a new project- Ohio and Florida will once again be the swing states in '08. Is anybody interested in doing a weekly editorial and letter round-up from one of those states, something we can follow for a while to get a feel for how things are going? Drop me an email or comment here.
The Tennessean
If Bush has nothing to hide about Abramoff, why is he working so hard at hiding his connections to Abramoff? That seems like a pretty simple question to ask. So why isn't it asked every day, in letters to the editor, in every newspaper in the country? Do you agree? Okay, so write a letter already.
Release Abramoff records
The Bush White House, notorious for its secrecy, should recognize the need to hand over any records detailing meetings staffers might have had with lobbyist Jack Abramoff. ...
On the other hand, the president cannot claim to have had no association with Abramoff. The lobbyist was a "Pioneer" in the president's fund-raising effort in the re-election campaign, a distinction earned for raising at least $100,000. He has been an associate of White House political guru Karl Rove. The president cannot pass off contact with Abramoff as though he were a Washington tourist.
The White House should realize that contacts with Abramoff are likely to come out somehow. If White House officials are worried that such information will be misrepresented, they should get it all out on their own. Otherwise, they will look as though they have something to hide.
The Tennessean
Unlike Iraq, Iran might pose a genuine nuclear threat in the Middle East. So what do we do? Our armed forces are stretched mighty thin, and while our technological superiority might allow us to successfully attack Iran, there can be little doubt that we could not control it once we did. Bush is finally going to have to understand that there is a place in the world for diplomacy as something other than mere war-foreplay. Does he have that capacity? I truly wonder. My greatest fear is that Bush sees Iran, not as a crisis, but as a mid-term election opportunity. I predict we will attack Iran's nuclear capability the week of October 2, one month before the mid-terms.
Iran needs a stern message
A decision by the United Nations nuclear watchdog to report Iran's nuclear program to the U.N. Security Council is appropriate and necessary.
The International Atomic Energy Agency voted 27-3, with five abstentions, to forward information on Iran's nuclear program to the Security Council, which could impose sanctions on Iran. Iran responded by saying it would begin uranium enrichment and disallow any surprise inspections. ...
U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld reportedly said this week that all options are on the table, including the potential for military action, a message Iran needs to hear. That's a given. But it is vital that diplomacy rule the issue. ...
Russia and China indicate they have a far more realistic understanding of the issue than Iran does. Economic ties are important in the current global climate. Iran appears single-minded and may assume too much from its bigger partners. The United Nations should keep the pressure on. It is important that Iran realizes that it stands alone.
The Pensacola News Journal
This letter is about a particular proposed voter registration law in Florida, but it really points to something far more insidious and perverse. The real point of this letter is that neither Republicans nor Democrats are true to any value other than consolidating power. If it takes a new unfunded mandate on small business owners to add a few Republican voters, Republicans are for it. If increasing access to the vote means adding Republicans, rather than Democrats, Democrats are against it. The whole process is broken, and the only way to fix it is to start all over again, and that should start with redistricting, for the gerrymandering is what has caused the incredible polarization in the first place.
Republicans learn to love governmental mandates
There was a day when conservatives and most Republicans believed in small government. In those days, they used to deride -- as misguided -- Democrats' efforts to accomplish some supposed societal good through mandates on the private sector. ...
How else to explain the giddy enthusiasm of a supposed conservative like state Rep. Greg Evers, R-Baker, to require stores that sell hunting and fishing licenses to also provide voter registration materials? ...
Used to be a good conservative would opine that someone who hasn't registered to vote has failed to do so through a lack of personal responsibility. Now we discover that it's because they spend so much time in outdoors shops that they don't have time ... or something.
Democrats, meanwhile, come off as churlish in complaining about the latest proposed mandate out of Tallahassee. Of course, they're right that it is designed to register more Republicans, under the idea (right or wrong) that hunters tend to be Republican ... or at least, in the absence of proof such as voter registration, Republican-minded.
As usual, politicians out to do good -- or solidify their presence in office -- can't be bothered with complaints from the owners of small businesses who must carry out the mandates. ...
Yet, an effort by Democrats to expand the bill to also include beauty shops and day care centers was opposed by Evers ... and rejected in committee.
Ah, the joys of state power!
The Star Ledger
Here is at least one paper less than impressed by the selection of Boehner as majority leader. To call Boehner a "fresh face" in the House is like calling David Strathairn a "fresh face" in Hollywood, just because he's usually been cast in a supporting, rather than leading, role.
The GOP's same face
Republicans say the selection of John Boehner as House majority leader is a recognition that things had to change. Struggling to erase their image as lawmakers for sale to any lobbyist who whispers in their ears and places hefty campaign contributions in their palms, Republicans opted for what they called a "fresh face."
The problem is that face has been around for 15 years. In that time, Boehner was no stranger to lobbyists and, in one less-than- stellar moment, distributed checks from tobacco companies to colleagues while on the House floor. ...
But on the face of it, Boehner's election doesn't signal a fresh new attitude about ethics by Republicans.
Pittsburgh Tribune Review
This is little more than a hit-piece, designed to attack without informing. The claim that personal retirement accounts "would help save the retirement pyramid scheme," without explanation, sounds far more like dogma than reason. As for the sarcastic attack on the 401(k) retirement plan, it is sound and fury signifying nothing, given that 401(k) plans take nothing from social security, while "personal retirement accounts" are intended to raid and drain social security and direct the assets from low-cost management to the same Wall Street salesmen who recommended Enron, WorldCom, and freezedriedoysters.com.
Liberal hypocrites
The National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare opposes instead of proposes. The liberal advocacy group, founded in 1982 by James Roosevelt, FDR's scion, mirrors today's Democratic Party. ...
The committee placed a full-page advertisement about "The State of Social Security" in USA Today shortly before the president's State of the Union address. Advocacy was limited to denigrating personal retirement accounts, which would help save the retirement pyramid scheme from its inevitable bankruptcy. ...
But the Social Security advocacy group did admit it matches up to 6 percent of the contributions employees make to their respective 401(k) retirement plans.
Speaking of private accounts.