| OCR Text |
Show A5 The Emery County Review, Tuesday, August 12, 2008 VIEWPOINT Opinion and Letters to the Editor Barack’s No Reagan Established January 2, 2007 James L. Davis, Publisher & Editor w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w Colleen A. Davis, Co-Publisher, Office & Advertising Manager Josie Luke, Assistant Editor Lyndsay Reid, Advertising Design Charlotte Williams, Advertising Sales Kathy P. Ockey, Staff Journalist Casey Wood, Webmaster Our Vision To be a valued member of the communities we serve and to be trusted as an honest, truthful and reliable source of news. w w w Our Mission To inform, entertain and provide a public forum for the discussion of events impacting the people of the Emery County area and to inform with news and features relevant to those who call the Castle Valley area home w w w Our Principles We will be ethical in all of our efforts to provide information to the public. We will be unbiased in our reporting and will report the facts as we see them and do our best to focus on the good news of the county, its people, history and way of life. We will be strong and active members of the community and assist in any way that we are able. We will strive to provide the best quality product possible to our readers and advertisers...always. We will verify the details of news we are reporting and if a mistake is made on our part we will correct it immediately. We will always listen to suggestions on how to do our job better. L. Brent Bozell III Newsweek’s love for Barack Obama knows no bounds. After Obama’s speech in Berlin, Newsweek published a headline that suggests an editor who’s spent six days drunk on a merry-go-round: “Obama’s Reagan Moment.” That deserves the Lloyd Bentsen retort: “I knew Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan was a friend of mine. Barack Obama is no Ronald Reagan.” The Newsweek piece sneered that while Obama and John Kennedy spoke to more than 100,000 people, Reagan spoke to a much smaller audience, “only about 20,000,” and they were outnumbered by leftist protesters the night before. They recalled, “Even some of Reagan’s aides were embarrassed by the ‘tear down this wall’ line, thinking it was too provocative or grandiose.” Newsweek would concede only that “Reagan understood stagecraft,” and communism’s fall “made his words prescient.” In other words, the Gipper was a showboat who got lucky. This is nothing more than Newsweek’s continuing campaign to rewrite history. Back in 1987, Newsweek was not prescient. They came to bury Reagan’s speech as a desperate gesture of a crumbling lame-duck presidency ruined by Iran-contra. Their story on his trip began: “Ronald Reagan wasn’t the only lame duck at the economic summit in Venice last week, and he wasn’t the only allied leader to nod off when the proceedings turned soporific.” Newsweek chronicled Reagan’s woes, then declared how only Mikhail Gorbachev could restore luster to the old man: “It is the ultimate paradox of Reagan’s lifelong opposition to all things communist that a U.S.-Soviet Editorial Submission Guidelines The Emery County Review welcomes and invites letters to the editor and guest opinion articles on public policy or current events. We welcome letters of thanks to individuals who have helped make our community a better place to live, work and play. The editorial staff reserves the right to edit all submissions for space constraints, clarity and errors in fact. Submissions must include author’s name and contact information. Contact information will not be published. Letter’s and opinion articles can be sent to jldavis@theemerycountyreview.com, mailed to The Emery County Review, P.O. Box 487, Orangeville, UT. 84537 or faxed to 435-748-2543. arms agreement and a third summit with Gorbachev offer the best, and perhaps last, hope for reinvigorating his presidency.” They saw Reagan with a foolish career of “opposition to all things communist” turning to Gorbachev as his savior, and painted Gorbachev as more persuasive and attractive to Europe. The magazine geniuses at the time seemed to adore Gorby as if he were ... Barack Obama. At least Newsweek in 1987 (but not in 2008) chronicled what Reagan told the pro-Soviet protesters there at the end of his speech: “I wonder if they have ever asked themselves that if they should have the kind of government they apparently seek, no one would ever be able to do what they’re doing again.” But Reagan’s rhetorical daring in his time marks why Obama’s Berlin remarks sounded so phony. He declared: “People of the world -- look at Berlin, where a wall came down, a continent came together, and history proved that there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one. … If we could win a battle of ideas against the communists, we can stand with the vast majority of Muslims who reject the extremism that leads to hate instead of hope.” No adoring anchorman dared to ask: Who, precisely, Sen. Obama, is the “we” who won a battle of ideas against communism? Who was the “we” who dared to insist that liberty was the superior ideal, that “Freedom is the victor,” and to demand that the walls of Soviet tyranny should fall? It was not America as a whole. It was certainly not Europe as a whole. To publicly declare such a bold wish for an end to the Soviet empire, to denounce the Berlin Wall as a “scar” across Berlin, and a “gash of barbed wire, concrete, dog runs and guard towers” was seen by the international left, and the Democrats, and the press corps here at home as undiplomatic saber-rattling. It was, to quote the Hillary Clintons of the world, “cowboy diplomacy.” Barack Obama is an arrogant pretender to a throne he has not earned. He wanted to stand at the Brandenburg Gate like Reagan, grasping desperately for a chance to look presidential. But he hasn’t in any way demonstrated Reagan’s resolve against America’s enemies. Instead, this power-hungry newbie has stood in about seven different places in the last four years on the primary controversy of our time. In 2002, he opposed the Iraq war from the pews of his America-deserved-9/11 church. In 2004, he stood staunchly and very temporarily by John Kerry’s vote for war. In 2006, he calculated that the best way to win the Democratic nomination was to play kissy-kissy with Code Pink and channel MoveOn.org’s demand that the president acknowledge all was lost in Iraq. Now, having defeated all those Democratic suckers who voted for war, he’s developing yet another position, that the success of the surge means that he didn’t have to be right about the surge or anything else, that the country is now ready for a rapid withdrawal of forces. Ronald Reagan was willing to endure an entire career being mocked by the press and the political intelligentsia for standing firmly in one bunker of a war of ideas. Barack Obama has demonstrated only one cause, one idea he consistently believes in. Its name is Barack Obama. (L. Brent Bozell III is the president of the Media Research Center. Copyright 2008 Creators Syndicate Inc.) PUBLIC FORUM Hardship for America Despite the fact that a recent poll found that Americans now believe by a 3-1 ratio gas prices are a bigger problem than global warming. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., an avid opponent of offshore drilling, vows to block a drilling vote and even dialogue from occurring on the House floor. Harry Reid, DNev., echoed the same sentiment when he eliminated energy amendments to his anti-speculation bill. And now they’re off for their five week un-earned vacation! President Bush recently lifted the executive ban on offshore drilling; the ball was placed completely in Congress’ court to make the next move. Pelosi justified their inactivity by blaming the president: “What we’re saying is, ‘Exhaust other remedies’, Mr. President.’” My first reaction to Pelosi’s recent congressional energy rebellion was to say, “What an anti-American, anti-reality-based form of representation.” Two years ago, before taking the congressional helm, Pelosi blamed the president for the energy crisis. Now, instead of providing any solutions at all, she still is blaming the president. Instead of spending her valuable time leading Congress in resolving our energy crisis, she’s kicking off a national tour to support her new book, “Know Your Power: A Message to America’s Daughters.” Rush Limbaugh helped to relieve my tension on his local radio broadcast (Castle Country FM 954). He spoke for the majority of Americans against Pelosi’s desire to tap into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve: How did it get there? We had to drill for it, didn’t we?’ I mean, if she wants the 700 million barrels released in order to help with the price, which is not going to do that much, it’s not that much oil. It’s a one-time thing you can do. The oil had to be drilled. So drilling will lead to relief. We can drill our way out of this. We drilled our way into the strategic reserve.” Compare the inept inactivity of Nancy Pelosi on this gas crisis with the informed activity of conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh. Rush is politically savvy; Pelosi is politically cunning. Rush confronts government gridlock; Pelosi creates it. Rush gives solutions; Pelosi ground-n-pounds them. Rush says to drill here and drill now; Pelosi says not to drill now or later. Rush motivates Americans to action; Pelosi paralyzes the House to inaction. I bet Rush has had more positive influence on Congress through the years by his broadcasts than Pelosi ever will from her House throne. If only Rush would seriously consider a run for her seat! Most of all, I pray that we ultimately inspire a new generation of patriots who will fight on-air, on the Internet and in congressional halls with the fire of Patrick Henry rather than that of Nancy Pelosi. - Robert L Warren East Carbon City In Defense of FaceSucking Vampires Regarding the “Casey’s Pockets” article entitled “Since when did vampires stop sucking blood and start sucking face?” Have you ever heard the old saying “Don’t knock it till you try it?” Maybe, just maybe, someone who decides to write an article about something, like say, a book, that person should have at least attempted to read said book? Just because you have heard one quote from said book that may have “repulsed” you does not mean that the whole book, or series of books in this matter, is repulsive. I ask you, what is so wrong about a “compassionate vampire falling in love” or vampires who choose to hunt animals rather than humans? I have read the entire “Twilight” series of books to date, including the last one that was just released. Let me tell you something Mr. Manly Man who only likes vampires who turn into bats, are scary, violent and kill people, there is a lot more action and suspense in this series than you give it credit for. I for one believe that behind all that macho façade Casey Wood puts across in his column, is a romantic begging to surface, and if you would just try to read the books with an open mind you might actually appreciate the yucky romance entwined around all the suspense and action. I would like to present you with a challenge. I challenge you to read the entire series: “Twilight,” “New Moon,” “Eclipse,” and “Breaking Dawn.” If you still feel exactly the same way when you have finished as you did at the time you wrote the article, I will concede that you are the manliest of men and that the “Twilight” series are sissy girl books. But until that day, I, and probably every other “Twilight” fan would like you to keep your opinion to yourself until you know what you are talking about. - Melissa Barnes Castle Dale |
