I can't even read David Reinhard any more

Submitted by Burl Ross on November 11, 2005 - 9:07am

I can't even read David Reinhard any more. The only topic he writes about is what he thinks liberals think, and he's wrong every time. I already know what I think, thank you, and I will tell you truthfully and clearly what I think I think if you really want to know. Why doesn't he just comment about what we say we think? Does he think we aren't telling the truth about what we think? Since when are liberals shy about saying what they think? My theory is that he judges liberals as he judges conservatives and himself, and that is that if they are saying it, it is a lie. While this formula works unfailingly with Republicans ("culture of life" equals pro-war, pro-death penalty -- the examples are well-known and endless), it is of no use when applied to Democrats who will actually say what they mean, in your face, whether you want to hear it or not. Just try to get a liberal to lie about what they think, to say they are pro-censorship, anti-choice, pro-poverty, anti-education or pro-taxcuts for the rich, and see how far that gets you. If David Reinhard insists on telling us what liberals think, he should try quoting one, which he never honestly does.

(Editor's Note: Did you know that there is a whole blog dedicated to dissembling Blowhard's mindless RNC tripe? Is an unreadable, laughable ideologue the best conservative voice the O can come up with?)

Burl Ross's blog

David v. Dave?

Submitted by Ruth Adkins on November 11, 2005 - 6:37pm.

Bravo, Burl! Wouldn't it be great if Sarasohn and Blowhard could debate sometime.

I find Blowhard useful to learn what the latest GOP memo/marching orders contains--I don't watch the pundit fests on Faux, etc. and he reliably parrots whatever the Leaders tell him to say.

3 letters to the O

Submitted by Sofa (not verified) on December 6, 2005 - 7:49pm.

I note that the Oregonian has now printed two letters refuting the letter of Burl Ross (United against Bush, Dec. 1), which was in turn a refute of the letter by veteran Richard D. DiVicenzo of Nov. 26.
As I recall, the original letter complained that his first amendment rights were being violated by the Oregonian because they didn't print every letter he sent them. What nonsense! I write ten letters for every one that gets printed, but I don't claim that I'm denied free speech. DiVicenzo can start his own newspaper.
As for the shallow arguments of him and his supporters, I would suggest that insulting and ridiculing other people's opinions is not a good start to the goal of "unifying." Bush lovers use the theme of fighting terrorism to justify the insistence that everyone must agree with them.
You want unity? Then agree with me, along with the 9-11 Commission, that the Bush administration is doing a terrible job in the war on terrorism. Then we can move on to why Bush is the most corrupt and incompetent President since Warren Harding. Let's unite!

Columnist David Reinhard served up a big plate of lies and distortion to the Oregonian's readers this Thanksgiving. His main premise is that House GOP leaders took seriously the proposal by Rep. John Murtha (D, Penn.) to redeploy U.S. forces in Iraq "at the earliest practicable date." That is nonsense. The Hayworth amendment was a stripped-down sham version of Murtha's carefully reasoned proposal, designed to fail. He concedes that "maybe there was a bit of partisan gamesmanship involved." In fact, there was nothing else to it.
Piling on the hypocrisy, he says "we need more real debate on U.S. policy in Iraq," echoing recent statements by Bush and Cheney. Then he repeats the Republican talking-points angle of calling Murtha's proposal a "surrender". A military force that surrenders must lay down it's arms, put up it's hands, and submit to the orders of the forces to which it is surrendering. No one is suggesting that anything like that is going to happen.
Ironically, another article in that day's edition stated that the "Bush administration is making plans to withdraw tens of thousands of U.S. troops from Iraq beginning early next year." Is the President surrendering? Reinhard's disgraceful column shows clearly that Republicans don't want a "real debate."

David Reinhard's column of Novermber 10 (A Counterattack in the war over the war) is nothing but a series of lies and distortions too numerous to list in a single letter. Here's just a few.
The Friday of Scooter Libby's indictment was "a tough day for Democrats." Pure spin. They need more tough days like that.
"There was no violation of the Espionage Act or Intelligence Identities Protection Act." Completely false. There were no charges brought, because Libby's lying impeded the investigation.
He says the White House hasn't defended itself since 2004. Absurd on its face.
He cites the Robb-Silberman Commission report as evidence that the administration didn't pressure intelligence analysts regarding Iraq. But even that widely ridiculed report stated that "There is no doubt that analysts operated in an environment shaped by intense policymaker interest in Iraq."
Then he gives yet another version of the Republican tactic of saying that because Democrats were fooled by them about Saddam's nuclear program, they're guilty too. The logic escapes me.
If Reinhard were a true patriot, he'd be more interested in learning the truth than using new lies to defend old ones.