Now
Mostly Cloudy
83°
High
82°
Low
63°
Full Forecast

Jobs

Cars

Homes

Rentals

Alerts

Subscribe
Home > Opinion > Letters
Bookmark Us   •   Make Us Your Homepage

Letters, 5/20: Johanns more of the same

Comments 42 comment(s)  
E-mail Story E-mail Story
Print Story Print Story
Share  Share
Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

Tuesday, May 20, 2008 - 12:00:41 am CDT

It appears that Mike Johanns intends to run on his party label and his strong association with President Bush.

My suspicion is that this year is different in Nebraska. I think the voters of this state have probably concluded that the Bush administration has been a colossal failure. We are mired in a war with no end and have taken no steps to improve health care, address global climate change or formulate a comprehensive energy policy.

In my view, any politician who strongly supports the failures of George W. Bush has forfeited the moral authority to play a role in our government.

In his long career in elected office, Johanns has proved that he cares more about advancing his political career than finishing the jobs to which he was elected. If elected, I presume he will soon leave office in order to work as a lobbyist in Washington.

Scott Kleeb is a fresh, new leader who can provide unique insight in the Senate. He is equally comfortable on a ranch, a military base and a classroom. As Nebraskans, we should proudly cast our votes for Kleeb.

Daniel H. Friedman, Lincoln

We don’t need new jail

It’s time for the county commissioners to wake up. Last Tuesday, 54 percent of voters joined me in voicing opposition to an unnecessary and expensive jail.

With the current jail population dropping, and the county in a budget crunch, it is time for current members of the board to start listening to residents of Lancaster County when we say this:

We don’t need it. We don’t want it.

Justin Klemsz, Lincoln

Truth eludes Bush

President Bush is staying the course. He continues to try to divide the nation into patriots and appeasers.

He used the occasion of the 60th anniversary of Israel’s independence to launch a divisive political attack against Barack Obama, and by extension, other Americans who believe talking with someone before bombing them could be a good idea. He did this while speaking in Israel. This was a serious breach of the understood protocol that U.S. government officials not criticize Americans while speaking abroad.

“Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along,” Bush said.

The president apparently doesn’t realize that language does matter. People can use words to reach agreements, rather than to simply criticize those they disagree with, or convince them they are “wrong.”

We’ve all heard “Death to America” and “Death to Israel,” etc., but are we going to base everything we do as a reaction to the most extreme views of the most extreme people?

Bush doesn’t do nuance, he once said, but he let himself off the hook too easily. He doesn’t do truth well, either.

Obama has never supported striking deals with terrorists. Obama does have the capability to reach beyond the current extreme rhetoric and politicization of foreign policy, however, and that eventually will make a big difference in our standing in the Middle East and elsewhere overseas.

Thomas Hancock, Lincoln


$1 Sunday Delivery - Subscribe Today!
Letters > Back to Top of Story

Post Your Comment

Standards and Rules
All posts to JournalStar.com are subject to our Terms and Standards.
Your posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
Frequently asked questions about story commenting.
(optional)
   
Hide Comments Hide Comments   Newest First Newest First  
Henry wrote on May 20, 2008 12:49 am:
" Yes, we all know Bush is an idiot by now. What is interesting is a Republican strategy that attempts to turn the Jews against Obama. I have a feeling this will bite the Republicans in the rear. "

 Hey Justin... wrote on May 20, 2008 6:40 am:
" Stating that the jail population is down based on last weeks article is like saying the price of gas is down one cent. The population is still way over federal standards. I work in the criminal justice system. Despite huge efforts to expand community corrections at the county and state level, our jail is still overcrowded. We need a new jail. Period. If you don't want to pay for it, perhaps we should drop a few inmates off at your house. "

 Yup wrote on May 20, 2008 7:24 am:
" Justin, haven't you read the articles on the jail? The present jail is overcrowded, Federal says find room, we already send some prisoners elsewhere. What's your proposal to not building a jail, not locking up criminals? The judge sentences them to jail, what are we suppose to do? Until we have less people to put in jail, we have to have room. I wish you would have thought things through and read about the issue before you voted. Your kind of thinking is what is going to cause us to pay more for the jail now. "

 stignob wrote on May 20, 2008 7:50 am:
" The jail is only non_compliant because they shut down the other facilities in air park. This was planned long ago by the bureaucrats of Lincoln to make it look like they need a new jail. Not fooled here... "

 Say what you want about Bush... wrote on May 20, 2008 7:58 am:
" but it is an UNDISPUTED fact that we have not had any WMD or Terrorist attacks in this country since 9/11 due to policies set forth by this administration. I realize everyone is obsessed with the economy, but have you forgotten what happened with the economy in the days and weeks following 9/11??? Some industries have not yet recovered and may never. Bottom line is, if your national security is vulnerable, the economy will suffer greatly. "

 John Holmes wrote on May 20, 2008 8:10 am:
" I cannot believe that people still support and defend the current president. "

 Yep wrote on May 20, 2008 8:23 am:
" To You can what you say about Bush: Before Bush took office we were attack free in this country for 8 years! We even stopped terrorists trying to cross the border into this country in 1999. Once Bush took office, he left the terrorists in and we were attacked on 9-11! "

 Ryan wrote on May 20, 2008 8:41 am:
" Which president was in power when 9/11 happened? AFTER Bush cut the terrorism budget? Oh yeah... And when you can't prove that it WAS Bush's policies that have actually kept us from another attack you've proven nothing. "

 ST wrote on May 20, 2008 8:45 am:
" You people need to get over the "we haven't had a terrorist attack since 9/11" line of malarkey. 9/11 was seven years ago.The first trade center attack took place in 1993, and the second one (9/11) in 2001, eight years. So by your logic, Clinton did a better job of protecting us. And, oh yeah, prior to 1993, there hadn't been a foreign attack on the continental US in nearly 200 years, since the war of 1812...also an UNDISPUTED fact. How are you going to give Bush credit for that one? "

 Josh wrote on May 20, 2008 8:45 am:
" Speaking os, I wonder how long it will be before Bush brings out the terror alert system again. The last time it was used was in the run-up to the 2006 elections. It is only a matter of time before we get that yellow, green, orange color code on our TV screens. "

 Hank wrote on May 20, 2008 9:03 am:
" I would like to ask all those people who so enthusiastically want to build another jail: How is it that the United States incarcerates seven times as many people, per capita, as other developed countries do, yet our crime rates are no better? The fact is, of course, that we are completely on the wrong track when it comes to dealing with crime. Just blindly continuing to put more people in jail is about the dumbest thing we can do. We can begin to reduce our cruel, expensive, and unproductive incarceration rate by insiting this local jail project be stopped. Without more jail space, our judges and law makers will have to institute alternatives to incarceration, just like all truly civilized countries have always done. More directly, this fall we can simply vote the incumbant county commissioners out of office. Not only do we need alternatives to incarceration, we need some alternatives to the current clueless county commissioners. "

 Mark wrote on May 20, 2008 9:12 am:
" The Bush bashers have fallen right into the big lie of the 21 century. The bigger the lie, the more people believe it. It's apparent by the letters to the editor and the many, many pundits on television, people are lining up behind this big lie.
With age comes experience. Do we listen to young people in education or business? Of course not. Why? Because they have no experience with much of anything. Someone with no experience has nothing of substance to offer without knowledge and experience of facts or events. This is why they are so vulnerable to this lie.
Osama bin Laden once said," we love death. America loves life. That is the difference between them and us". Iran's president has many of these same belief's. To think for one second Obama is the person to sit down and talk with him, or any other terrorist who wishes all who live in the west dead just goes to show how truly ignorant he is. I know life long, hard core democrats who are terrified of this guy and what he brings to the table. They are absolutely right.

"

 Jody P. wrote on May 20, 2008 9:12 am:
" Regarding Mr. Hancock's letter, terrorists usually ARE the most extreme people with the most extreme views. Mr. Hancock says that Obama has never supported striking deals with terrorists. Then why would Obama want to negotiate with them? It seems like there would need to be some kind of "deal" as the goal of the talks, right? Or else why talk? On the other hand, if Obama does NOT want to negotiate with terrorists, when what's the problem with what Bush said?

Anyway, diplomatic talks with nation-states, such as Iran, have been widely recommended by people of all stripes, not just Barack Obama. However Obama's pledge to meet personally with ANY leader without ANY pre-conditions does seem to meet one definition of "naive".

Hopefully Obama is not thinking about holding ANY sort of talks, especially not personal one-to-one, with terrorist groups (as opposed to nation-states) or their leaders. I mean, seriously, the "Obama-Osama Summit"? I don't think even the most ardent Obama fan wants to go there. "

 To Say what you want about Bush... wrote on May 20, 2008 9:28 am:
" You actually think it is all his doing?!!! Please wake up. I cannot believe people actually support this "man". This man took us to a country to fight "terrorist" like Rambo fights bad guys, and for what? To "give" Iraq democracy? Yeah right. "

 Mr. Hancock.... wrote on May 20, 2008 10:08 am:
" Did you even listen to Bush's speech? He doesn't mention Obama...EVER! In fact, it's been confirmed that he was referring to Carter's talks with Hamas. Obama believes that the world now revolves around him and any utterance that may call his tactics into question cause quite a reaction. The Reps. should use this, and likely will, as they've obviously struck a nerve. To others, you can blame Bush till you're blue in the face, however it still won't change the fact that your candidate is flawed in many ways and has much to learn if he hopes to sit behind the desk in the Oval Office. "

 MCA wrote on May 20, 2008 10:15 am:
" The economic effects of 9/11 are way overblown. The paragraph below is from an article covering the topic. The link to the full article is below.


"Don’t get me wrong. There can be no doubt that the economy was thrown for a loop by the attacks on September 11. But it was a short-lived loop. Retail sales, travel, and the financial markets were put on hold for a number of days. Within a couple of months, however, retail sales had moved back on the strong growth trend that had preceded September 11. The stock market was closed for a period and took an immediate dive after reopening. Within a couple of months, however, the major indexes all soared past their September 10 levels."

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_viewpoints_9_11_economy "

 Tired of it All wrote on May 20, 2008 10:22 am:
" I am amazed at the niavety of the Obama wonderkind following. The Middle East has been in the hate America mode since 1948,(founding of Isreal). Nothing is going to change with Obama in office, if anything it will get worse as the radical powers that be in the Middle East will see his appeasement as weakness. There is no "instant" answer to this problem, and niether party has a clear and defined plan of action, only electioneering promises that lack credibility or substance. Isreal understand the consequences of appeasement, with each agreement they made, and promise from thier neighbors, Isreal gives up more and still the war continures, and thier enemies demand more. Isreal understands that until they no longer exsist, the violence will continue, and warn the US on taking a simular course. That is why they stood and applauded, they understand. In his July 2006 sppech Obama stated that he would talk to these leaders with no conditions, so without the power of the "big stick" to quote Teddy Roosevelt, any negotiated agreement will be laughable. And Peace in our time will ring as hollow as it did in 1938.
The "truth" eludes both parties and all three candidates, as they all promise with little chance of delievering. "

 MarkyMark wrote on May 20, 2008 10:33 am:
" You Bush defenders have really bought into a bill of goods. Explain to me how our illegal occupation of Iraq has anything to do preventing terrorist attacks on our soil. This defies logic even at a third grade level. "

 To Mark..... wrote on May 20, 2008 10:41 am:
" You could not be so far from the truth. I am (63) and could not disagree with you more. Maybe step away from FOX for 5 minutes and create your own thoughts instead of having them forced down your throat you will see exactly how messed up our current president is. And who will you vote for? McCain? So we can have more of the same we have now? I don't agree with everything Obama does, but that doesn't mean I won't vote for him. Oh and I am a republican. "

 Nina wrote on May 20, 2008 10:56 am:
" Kudos to the posters here who saw through the lame reasoning of 'Say what you want...' We all know that in so many ways - economically (we owe China more than we can pay in a lifetime), democratically (the rich have gotten richer, the poor poorer, and tolerance for those different from us is at a low), with our military (our numbers are stretched now, so that we would have trouble defending ourselves if attacked), and with our reputation (the world doesn't see America with the same eyes it did before, shown by not only criticism, but with our allies pulling out of Iraq). We're desperate for a change, because if we continue the path Bush has led, eventually the American way of life will no longer be able to exist. We're not Bush-haters; we're concerned to the point of being fearful for our country. We don't want to be like the old adage that tells how we didn't speak up when all these others were affected, and now it has come to us and is our turn for no one to care. "

 Obama wrote on May 20, 2008 11:11 am:
" To those who believe Bush wasn't talking about Obama because he doesn't mention him by name: Bush's press office spent the entire week up until his speech previewing it for the media and declaring that Bush would be mentioning Barack Obama in the speech. Therefore, when Bush talked about those who want to practice diplomacy before bombing, the media and Obama assumed that it was Obama to whom Bush was referring. It was a logical assumption, and Bush's half-hearted non-denials since the speech are a perfect example of his administration's usual spin, half-truths, and outright lies. "

 The Truth wrote on May 20, 2008 11:30 am:
" You guys are so funny. You sit here and bash Bush about his presidentcy, yet you were the ones who voted for him...not just one time but twice. Instead of bashing the man why not also take some accountability for what he's done...I mean you did vote him in for YOUR sake right? This time around you should probably vote out of the concern for the Country rather than your own. I'm sure that will be a tough challange for you repub's. "

 RE Mark wrote on May 20, 2008 12:00 pm:
" speaking of lies. Osama says we love death and america loves life. Have you noticed thats a lie as Osama sends people to their deaths, he doesn't volunteer for it. Since georgie got into office all he's done is lie. "

 SB wrote on May 20, 2008 12:38 pm:
" It would be tough to say that we are safer since Bush’s war. "

 Mark wrote on May 20, 2008 12:47 pm:
" I don't watch Fox news, nor do I listen to Rush. CNN is my news station of choice. So for those of you who are making assumptions..and we all know what happens when someone makes an assumption..you could not be farther from the truth...again. "

 Edgar Pearlstein wrote on May 20, 2008 12:52 pm:
" Bush's admirers like to say that because of him we are safer now than we were seven years ago. Not if "we" includes the 160,000 American troops in Iraq, who are demonstrably not safer! "

 Chris wrote on May 20, 2008 12:58 pm:
" Here is something to throw all the partisans for a loop. Actually both President Bush and Sen. Barack Obama are wrong when it comes to foreign policy. Bush only inflamed the situation with Iran by his Axis Of Evil remark. And Obama is being just as foolish and niave as former President Clinton and former Secy. Of State Madeline Albright were in negotiating with the duplictious regime in North Korea. Both Bush and Clinton have seriously damaged this country foreign policy wise "

 the Real Truth wrote on May 20, 2008 1:06 pm:
" Obama never said he would talk to terrorists like Bin Laden. If he did, please provide the source. He did say he would talk to nations, even Hamas, which is the duly elected government of Palestine.

We need to talk to countries whether we like them or not. For decades we declared Russia (USSR) the enemy yet we talked to them. Eisenhower, Reagan, Bush 1 to name a few and look at what happened. I would hate to see what the world would be like if we never engaged them in talks. Most of which had pre conditions attached and not always to our benefit.

BTW, I am old enough to remember the Korean War. "

 To Nina... wrote on May 20, 2008 1:17 pm:
" I agree with what you said. BUT I am so sick of this "the rich are getting richer" statement. You mean to tell me if you built a multi million dollar business and worked so hard for it that you would find it plausable to tax youself more because others don't make as much as you? So they should be taxed less? That to me is just crazy thinking. I know people who complain everyday about their job and do NOTHING to change their life. We are all born with the same abbilities, but it is up to you to make your life what you want, why should I have to pay for people who choose not to work hard? (I realize this isn't everyone) "

 Jeff wrote on May 20, 2008 1:54 pm:
" Regarding the comment on the value of experience, we all saw the value that Donald Rumsfeld brought to the table. I think that is enough to shoot down that theory. "

 jmk wrote on May 20, 2008 2:11 pm:
" The best method for income taxes would be a straight 10% for everyone with no special treatment for anyone. No tax shelters, no deductions. "

 Experience wrote on May 20, 2008 2:26 pm:
" One of the most experienced men in Washington is Dick Cheney. "

 HR Block wrote on May 20, 2008 4:10 pm:
" Sorry folks but a flat tax would be a disaster for America. We have had a progressive tax system for quite some time. To go with a flat tax would raise taxes on the poor and middle class and reduce them on the richer Americans. Richer Americans pay more on our progressive system as they can afford it. It is the Patriotic thing to do when you enriched yourself from this country to help give back to it. What the poor save by not paying higher taxes goes right back into the economy and helps all. Same with most of the middle class. If we all pay the same percent, we are either short of revenue or the, poor and much of the middle class have no disposable income to spend into the economy. This is simple economics. "

 To Stignob wrote on May 20, 2008 4:51 pm:
" The facility in airpark that was closed was a state run facility, not a county run facility. The county facility is still up an running, and guess what, we still have overcrowding. Any other "conspiracy theories"? "

 AWP wrote on May 20, 2008 5:20 pm:
" I find it funny when the best retort is to tell posters to stop listening to Rush and watching FOX. Those of you that do this need to start thinking for yourselves and stop visiting the MoveOn.org website. Step away from your computer, get out of your bedroom in your parent's basement and step out into the real world. Try applying your phony idealism and victimization theology in a democratic society and see how far it gets you. Thats right, back to mom and dad's basement. Well, I guess it has made Michael Moore rich, but do you really want to be him? "

 ol Farmer wrote on May 20, 2008 7:04 pm:
" We would do well with a president like Truman, who pulled himself up by his bootstraps and led by example, instead of Bush, born with a silver spoon in his mouth, that left him woefully inadequate to lead the US. I disagree that people who haven't 'made it' income-wise do not work hard. Millions (without the start the privileged are likely to have) work two jobs, and have for years, struggling to educate their children and support their families. The stark truth is that the rich have become richer, and the poor have become poorer. Government statistics show this gap to be the widest it has ever been, which is not a good indicator of a healthy economy. You may be tired of HEARING it, but millions at the bottom are tired of LIVING it, and are just plain tired from working long hours, not having enough to enjoy recreation that would rejuvenate them, and trying to get by on too little sleep. I've been there, done that and can outwork almost anybody, as I prove daily working full time past retirement age. "

 stignob wrote on May 20, 2008 8:41 pm:
" There were 2 facilities closed in airpark. Does it matter? "

 JR wrote on May 20, 2008 10:47 pm:
" To AWP; wow, that is almost word for word from Michael Savage. And you didn't even give him credit for it. So let me ask you something ... why are so many of you so angry? For those of you who voted for Bush, you got exactly the government you deserved. Unfortunately, those of us who didn't still must suffer with you. "

 mark wrote on May 21, 2008 7:07 am:
" more of the same? like low unemployment, no terrorist attacks? I'm good with that. "

 peb wrote on May 21, 2008 12:12 pm:
" For those of you that have forgotten--the US was attacked by a terrorist in 1995. Remember the Oklahoma City bombing? Remember who did that? US-born citizens. Our economy is currently as bad as it was after 9/11 and no terrorist attacks in 7 years. "

 Zoomie wrote on May 21, 2008 12:51 pm:
" Funny how Bush supporters get so worked up trying to claim that he's such a success by claiming there have been no terrorist attacks in America since 9/11...Except there was! Remember those anthrax letters, sent mostly to Democrats, in November 2001? Killed several people? Classed as a terrorist attack, unsolved to this day?
Oh, and let's note - Sec of Defense Gates and the US State Dept have BOTH said the same thing Obama has said, that it doesn't hurt to sit and talk to anyone you have a disagreement with, Syria, Iran, Hezbollah, whomever. That is NOT appeasement, its common sense! How come no one is mentioning that Bush and McCain are totally out of step with Bush's own Defense and State Departments? Or that Israel has secretly been talking to Syria for over a year now? "

 no jail me wrote on May 21, 2008 4:19 pm:
" I want over crowded jails so they don't send me there. I vote no for a new jail. "

Ads by Yahoo!

More Stories In Letters