Our readers write

Campaign ads are disgusting

To The Editor:
I would like to address this to ALL political candidates — local, state and federal. Shame on you! As a voter, I am disgusted with your negative campaign ads on the radio, on television, in the newspapers and the junk you send me in the mail. What a waste of money. I am sick and tired of those dour-sounding voices spewing out doom and gloom, telling me all of the dirt that has been dredged up about one candidate or the other. What has happened to civility?
I don’t want to hear what a dirty, rotten, lying, cheating, no-good scoundrel your opponent is. I want to know what you intend to do to fix the mess our country is in. I want to know your views on the issues facing us today.
I am sick of the propaganda being spewed out by one certain party that claims to be for Christians but, more frequently than not, acts in ways contrary to the faith. They are using rhetorical phrases like “government health care take-over,” and “health-care schemes” and other scare tactics to scare voters into voting their way. Shame on them.
Any candidate who portrays himself or herself as being a church-going, faithful Christian and is running an ad that is attacking the other candidate’s character is a hypocrite. There is nothing Christian about those ads. Jesus tells us that before we can remove the stick from someone else’s eye, we must first remove the plank from our own eye.
You politicians wonder why there is so much voter apathy — take a look at  yourselves. Do you want to know why we hang up on your phone calls and refuse to donate to your campaign? Your disgusting behavior is turning us off. Why should we vote when it is obvious — by your ads — that none of you have any business governing our state or our country.
Pam Puckett
Troy

Negative ads
are offensive
To The Editor:
I am disgusted with the negative ads we see and hear today. They play on personal attacks, half-truths, un-truths and name calling with no real substance. There is nothing about the issues that burden our areas. I received one this week and started to do like many folks, just trash it. But I decided I would speak out against such waste of our time.
There is no question who this was intended to help. The attacks were on the Sandersons’ small business run by Bill Sanderson and his mother. This business is a third generation business in a small community helping people for many years. These are the same people the ad accuses of being hurt. Can’t be too much wrong or they wouldn’t still be in business. They employ 15, generating income for these families. The business creates sales taxes, pays into Social Security, and pays business taxes and insurance for its employees. Many professionals do none of these.
Due to the nature of a small business, they help the people in the community by providing appliances and other household goods to families that can’t go to a Lowe’s, Sears or other large store. These people can pay low monthly payments with rates much less than credit card and finance companies charge. Hence the need to file claims against those that can’t pay or won’t. These are hard times and many times more so for small businesses in our communities. People and businesses need help, not criticism.
If one were to really want to know about the Sandersons, just talk to the people in and around Kenton.
In the flier, there was mention of 120 suits filed. This seems reasonable to me as this just might be over an extended period of time. I doubt 120 claims clog the court systems, as there are many businesses much larger, with many more accounts that are accessing the courts. I understand that the courts charge a fee of $120 per account. This would calculate to Sanderson’s paying more than $14,000 into the court. This is their money, not taxpayers’ money. As to the claim of low frivolous low claims, I think most businesses wouldn’t pay $120 to file a claim for $34.
Lastly, I am sure lawyers in Nashville wrote the flier. I find it strange that the very profession that makes it their business to sue folks criticizes a small business for using the courts to do the same, collect their delinquent accounts.
Many political ads that appear usually have a candidate’s name attached and an added comment, “I approve this message.” If a candidate doesn’t approve of a statement made in the ad, they have an ample opportunity to publicly state such.
Jerry Paschall
Rives

Prayer decision
is disturbing
To The Editor:
Has this country become so politically correct and so liberal that we are allowing its destruction by individuals and small groups? An example of what I am referring to is the article that appeared in The Messenger Oct. 20 concerning prayers before a football game. Some students got The Freedom from Religion Foundation from Madison, Wis., involved so they could get the prayers stopped.
I am well aware of the First Amendment and the separation of church and state, and also the importance of our Constitution, but in reality, this appears to be more a case of wanting to destroy and eliminate religion than just separating it. I also seriously doubt these students were traumatized in any way by this experience. I can only hope they are as concerned about their education as they are this event.
In New York City, they close busy streets, during the day, every day, so the Muslims who don’t have room in their mosques can pray, on the streets, to Allah.
The staff attorney in the school’s case called it a serious and flagrant violation of the First Amendment. If she considers this case flagrant, what would she call the New York case? More importantly, when can we expect the Freedom from Religion Foundation, and this staff attorney, to get involved in this “flagrant,” New York City situation? I would guess when hell freezes over.
One of the big concerns that our third president, Thomas Jefferson, had was that courts would overstep their authority and rather than interpreting the law, would become an oligarchy, the rule of the few over the many.
Now, are these not prime examples of what he feared?
Gary Spence
Troy

Political fact
checking a must
To The Editor:
Want to know what the Political Lie of 2009 was? According to PolitiFact.com, which won a Pulitzer Prize for its political fact checking of the 2008 elections, it was the whopper about Death Panels. Obama and Congressional Democrats were accused of putting in the health care reform bill a provision to pull the plug on grandmas and grandpas when they became seriously ill. Those making this accusation were either grossly misinformed or deliberately misrepresenting the facts.
In reality, the provision authorized Medicare to pay for counseling, when requested, regarding advanced directives and medical options available at the end of life, such as hospice care, resuscitation, and the use of ventilators and feeding tubes. Many Medicare beneficiaries forgo this counseling because they cannot pay for it out of their own pockets. This provision would have solved that problem.
Research shows that of those receiving such counseling, more choose to die at home with hospice care rather than in an ICU, tubes running from them in all directions, denied the comfort of family and familiar surroundings. Dying in an ICU is much more expensive than dying at home, to the tune of $10,000 a day. This provision had the potential to save Medicare a huge amount of money.
Research also shows that, regardless of the options they choose, those who receive such counseling face death in a much more positive, less fearful frame of mind. Unfortunately, the Death Panel Lie created such an outcry that the provision was removed. So this lie delivered a double knockout blow–one to the taxpayer and one to the elderly indigent. For some, scoring political points trumped truth, economics, and compassion.
This unfounded allegation was not the only one that sprang up about health care reform. Another was that it covers illegal immigrants. It doesn’t. Nor does it tell you what doctor you can see or what hospital you can go to. And it doesn’t cover abortions. If a women who receives a federal subsidy for health insurance wants to buy a policy that includes abortion benefits, she will be required to pay a separate premium for the abortion coverage out of her own pocket.
The health reform bill doesn’t cut basic Medicare benefits, either. What it does cut over a period of several years are the federal subsidies for Medicare Advantage plans, which offer extra benefits. So the insurance companies offering these plans will probably reduce or cut the extras out altogether. But the basic benefits haven’t been touched.
These issues are going to surface again. Beware those spouting them.
Lynda Hamblen
Union City

Published in The Messenger 10.27.10

Print