Skip to main contentSkip to main content
You have permission to edit this article.

Wednesday's letters

  • 0

The Senate debate

I read the recap in the News & Record today (Oct. 9) of the senatorial debate between Rep. Ted Budd and former Chief Justice Cheri Beasley. I was also able to watch it live on Friday night. One thing missing from the article was the wonderful job Tim Boyum of Spectrum News did in conducting the debate. He held the candidates’ collective feet to the fire but avoided disrespect or acrimony.

I was, however, disappointed by both candidates’ reliance upon boiler-plate responses obviously prepared by party experts. Unfortunately, nowadays that’s to be expected.

We did learn however that Ms. Beasley supports a woman’s right to choose, Mr. Budd decidedly does not. Ms. Beasley is in favor of getting rid of the reconstruction era filibuster rule, Mr. Budd is not. Ms. Beasley is for decriminalizing marijuana, Mr. Budd is not (and he lapsed into some odd argument about various other drugs that was irrelevant).

None of these positions are surprises.

What did surprise me was Mr. Budd’s professed pride in voting to decertify the 2020 election, saying he thought that vote was really about wanting more debate on the issue, which is healthy for democracy. Both the debate and election were over at that point. What did he propose debating? Whether the scaffold outside the Capitol building was adequate? Who should pay for the broken windows and doors or the medical bills for the wounded officers?

There is nothing but ignominy attached to that vote.

David B. Wilcox


What I meant

I am writing this letter to clear up some things said at the Oct. 3 City Council meeting.

Council members Marikay Abuzuaiter, Tammi Thurm and Mayor Nancy Vaughan all indicated I attacked Councilman Zack Matheny personally. Bringing up the fundraiser for Matheny’s wife was not a personal attack. It was to show that everyone in our community needs help sometimes, even on a high salary.

What council doesn’t understand is Matheny is not new to this; he has been part of this landscape for years. He left the council when he took the position with DGI because it was a conflict of interest. Why is it not a conflict of interest now?

As for me expecting Matheny to do something about homelessness in only three months, as council members have stated, that’s completely incorrect. What I am asking is that he not harm our most marginalized citizens. On my daily patrols downtown, I am seeing very little trash.

In complete transparency, I and several houseless folks invite council members to spend 24 hours in the park. The houseless have been saying, “Why can’t they come down here and talk to us? We’re not trash.”

What about it, council?

Paulette Montgomery


Welfare fraud

Mediocre, controversial NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick publicly, repeatedly thumbed his nose at America and all it represents. To those of you who are mostly under 60, who were indoctrinated to devalue the high qualities of America: Ninety-plus percent of what America represents is good and just; just ask anyone older than 60 in Europe or the Pacific Rim (I’m referencing World War I and World War II), and anyone in America who came from meager backgrounds and succeeded beyond their expectations, which would have been virtually impossible anywhere else.

All-everything NFL Hall of Fame quarterback Brett Favre apparently was part of a plan to divert government welfare money to the small Mississippi college he attended, and which his daughter attends today. So Kaepernick is a hero (and a “victim”), but Favre gets all the bad press? Obviously, it isn’t all black or all white. But despite how the media presents/misrepresents it, it isn’t that simple.

Should a truly objective, unbiased investigative reporter (rare indeed today) investigate welfare corruption and “welfare cheats” since “welfare” was created in 1935? It would be interesting to know how many billions have been “diverted” from those for which it was intended. And even more revealing, by which segment of our society?

I dare you, Associated Press, or Los Angeles Times, or New York Times, or ...

Clyde Hunt Jr.


Why not now?

In his column “We need immigration reform. But a secure border must come first” (Oct. 10) Marc A. Thiessen posits: “You cannot pass immigration reform in the middle of the worst border crisis in U.S. history. You have to secure the border first.”

As to the “worst border crisis in U.S. history,” Republicans scream “open borders” and Democrats say they are following current laws. My challenge to Mr. Thiessen relates to his claim that the border must be “secure” before we can pass immigration reform.

I suspect that he and other Republicans stand ready to move the “secure” definition goal posts each time Democrats claim the border is now secure.

My challenge to Mr. Thiessen, and other Republicans, is the simple question of “why not?”

Why not pass comprehensive immigration reform now?

The real reason is because the Republican Party enjoys using “open borders” as a campaign cry. They have no intention of ever coming to the table and seriously negotiating comprehensive immigration reform.

The Republican Party makes it clear daily that it has little integrity, little concern for human suffering and is certainly not going to give up this old whipping boy.

W. Scott Parker III


* I understand and agree that registration on or use of this site constitutes agreement to its user agreement and privacy policy.

Get up-to-the-minute news sent straight to your device.


Breaking News

News Alert