Letters to the Editor Sept 11, 2012

By Submitted September 13, 2012 05:11 pm

Extreme right to thank for uncivil discourse in politics

I was pleased to see Sam Allison check in (“Do not simply accept lies about Obama,” Aug. 30) and quite puzzled by Lilyan Wood’s take on his letter (“No longer any civil discourse at critical time in our history,” Sept. 6).  I admit I smirked a bit at Ms. Wood’s asking “the editor to withhold any further letters regarding the upcoming national election,” envisioning that should our editor have acceded to that request, he might not have printed hers.

 

The right’s self-styled defenders of the Constitution seek to restrict our right to vote in order to keep those away from the polls who might vote for Obama, and now someone suggests censorship to keep away those who might point out the lies of the extremists of the rabid right and would caution the voter to be aware.

If Ms. Wood actually read the substance of the list of accusations against President Obama that Mr. Allison presented, it must have been hard for her to avoid the realization that Mr. Allison has therein provided ostensible proof that we have the Rep-T’s and the extreme right to thank for the uncivil discourse Ms. Wood bemoans and of which she accuses Mr. Allison.  They are the ones who initiated those scurrilous attacks on Obama that burned away “civil discourse” in our country.

Ms. Wood confuses me. Mr. Allison offers “not a shred of evidence.” Of what? Did you require such evidence from those who made the listed accusations?  Or did you believe them simply because you wanted to?  Logic dictates that a person be able to prove his assertions. None of those Mr. Allison listed has met that criteria, therefore, the word “lies.” Many of these listed accusations against Obama have been floating around for several years and have been debunked rather thoroughly. 

Limiting ourselves to “the true facts” derived solely from what the candidates tell us is simply not sufficient. If Paul Ryan’s offerings are any example of the stuff we’re supposed to credit as “true facts,” one will simply be misinformed — and misled.  I rely on checking their statements.  

Some don’t want you to, of course. “Fact checkers come to this with their own sets of thoughts and beliefs, and we’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers,” said Romney pollster Neil Newhouse.  You betcha.

Sybil Saxelby

Smith River