If the Republican Party hopes to escape the wilderness it finds itself in, I think Republicans need to identify a better model than their current gasbag of a leader, Rush Limbaugh. Let me offer them a better example of a more authentic Republican leader: Teddy Roosevelt.

He was a leader of the people: He fought against the Big Trusts (corporations of an earlier day); he believed in the rights of workers to organize and the rights of people to live in decent and safe housing. He believed in an activist government that was concerned about public health. 

He was, perhaps, our best conservationist and defender of the environment. He fought public corruption as police commissioner and governor of New York and defended a strong civil service. He was willing to question and revise his own racial views and prejudices about African-Americans, and he believed in strong diplomacy (“speak softly but carry a big stick”).

He was a progressive Republican, not a reactionary like our senator, Mike Johanns, and the three congressmen. I don’t think any of them has voted “yes” on anything yet. They found reasons to vote “no” on equal pay for women who do equal jobs with men; they voted “no” on expanding child health care and, of course, “no” on an emergency stimulus package that should stem the hemorrhaging of jobs here and across the country.

Johanns seems to have aligned himself with the southern coalition of Republicans, very much different from the independent and progressive Chuck Hagel. I must commend Sen. Ben Nelson for his independence, courage and populist spirit. He remains the only “player” we have on the national scene from Nebraska.

Jerry M. Parsons, Lincoln

Foster policies scary

I wondered if anyone else noticed the kind of travesty  happening under our noses. Retired court-appointed special advocate for children Peggy Adair explained to the Judiciary Committee that too many children are being removed from their homes and placed in foster care in Nebraska (“Adair: Foster care’s long, winding road too costly,” LJS, Feb. 27).

She cited an instance when a refugee mom left her kids home alone for 45 minutes and they were subsequently placed in foster care. Good grief! That is terrifying!

The only reason this can happen is because these parents are poor. The state can get away with it because these parents don’t have the resources, financial or otherwise, to fight it.

They must just accept the heartbreak of having their children wrenched away from them for a moment of poor judgment (or in previously cited case, a cultural difference).

Why is this our only option? Wouldn’t it be less costly and certainly less adversarial if families were given gentle guidance instead of threats? Is every instance of neglect a cause for foster placement? Surely not. That should be reserved for the truly abused. The article noted that, in 2007, 63 percent of removals from home were for neglect.

I cannot imagine what these families go through. As a parent, these kinds of policies frighten me.

Holly R. Smith, Lincoln

Keep religion free

President Obama is attempting to usurp the right of  the medical profession to refuse to perform abortions.

President Bush reinforced the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights (ratified Dec. 15, 1791) when he signed into law the “conscience clause.”

Public servants are not permitted to prohibit the free exercise of religion.

Nancy M. Russell, Lincoln

Headline misleads

The headline March 1 said “Nelson opposes tax hike on wealthy.” That, and the story below it, are highly misleading.

What the headline and story should have said is “Nelson backs Bush tax cuts for wealthy.”

Far down in the story was the explanation that “the tax increase  … springs from allowing the Bush administration tax cut for the wealthiest taxpayers to expire in 2011 ….”

Taxes for the wealthy are now at a low point in recent history. And the incomes of the wealthy are at a high point.

President Bush cut taxes for the rich, operating on the theory that it would improve the economy. We can see now where that got us!

Earl Dyer, Lincoln

His own interest?

In the March 1 Journal Star there was an article about Sen. Ben Nelson opposing a tax increase on the wealthy. His reason: “I have serious questions (about) raising taxes in a down economy.” As we all know, President Barack Obama campaigned for office by saying he would increase taxes on the very wealthy and reduce taxes for 95 percent of the people.

During the past eight years under the Bush administration, tax breaks went to the wealthy, while the rest of us carried the tax load. Now President Obama wants to reverse this process, and Sen. Nelson opposes it.

I recall the last time Sen. Nelson campaigned for re-election. One thing he said was that his decisions are based on what is good for McCook, what is good for Nebraska and what is good for the country. Most of us fall into the 95 percent group that would benefit from reduced taxes, thus benefitting the economy. That would be good for us.

By not supporting a tax increase on the wealthy, you have to wonder whose best interests Sen. Nelson has in mind — perhaps his own.

Robert L. Morris, Lincoln

Keep parks safe

Legalizing liquor and beer in our state parks is a bad idea (“Opponents show up for alcohol in parks hearing,” LJS, Feb. 24). Some people would argue that they should be able to have a few beers while enjoying the great outdoors. In theory this is sound reasoning, but it often doesn’t stop with only a few.

The people who are going to drink already do so despite the laws. Most do this without consequence. Minors already go out to the lakes to party, and if we legalize it I believe the number of minors doing this would increase. I see this as being dangerous to all patrons of our parks, both those drinking and those not. There are shooting ranges, long twisty gravel roads, water and plenty of other opportunities for alcohol-related accidents to occur.

Advocates of lifting the ban on alcohol in our parks say this would be a good source of revenue. I hope  the state can show some prudence in this matter despite our struggling economy and keep in mind the safety of the people who enjoy our wonderful system of state parks.

Jake Sullivan, Lincoln

Make Manor priority

As a homeowner in Lancaster County, I always have been proud of the fact that we have an outstanding facility, Lancaster Manor, that takes care of our senior citizens. I feel the problems at the nursing home were caused by the commissioners’ negligence in overseeing the billing and management. So much for crying over spilled milk.

I heard the County Board may have to sell the manor. As far as I’m concerned, selling Lancaster Manor or using tax dollars are not options!

Commissioners need to put their heads together and do their job. With the Baby Boomer generation retiring and the uncertainty of the economy, there should be plans on the table for expansion! That makes a lot more sense to me.

Maybe commissioners could borrow from the new county jail budget. I would much rather have those residents be a little cramped  for a while than have more senior citizens each day not knowing where they are going to go.

Lancaster Manor should always be one of the top priorities of the county.

Charlotte Elliott, Lincoln