In praise of Bush

Dear Editor,

When reading your article (April 26) on President Bush it was a breath of fresh air and some very great writing. Too often the liberal media tries to shove lies and criticism about our Commander in Chief down readers’ throats (i.e Rathergate). What liberals and the Democratic Party have to know is that Americans spoke at the ballot boxes by reelecting President Bush with the greatest popular vote ever and the only true majority since his father won back in 1988. Now that Republicans are in control of the White House, Senate, House, and governorships shows a real dominance. This must say something that maybe the heartland and the people in the red states saw the lies and double talk of John “Francois” Kerry and that liberals have no agenda, but to hate President Bush.

So, my fellow Americans, you made your decision in November and deal with it because now the rresident and Republicans have the power to get rid of Social Security, terrorists, and Roe v. Wade. God Bless America and President Bush!

Sincerely,

Dan Cutts

First-year student

Late information

Dear Editor,

I like your article in the Clarion on the Senate presidential and vice-presidential candidates. However, I am very displeased that I did not see this until after the polls have already closed. Now this is something that seems to be very odd since you are funded by AUSA and this is one of the biggest events on campus, and yet you fail to get the information out there in a timely fashion. Just as the third page reads “candidates urge communication” obviously this is a big problem as our school newspaper does not provide us the crucial information we should be getting.

It just displeases me when another newer and non DU funded newspaper I just happened to pick up the other day, Common Sense had all the candidates, their stances on issues and their involvement on campus; in my opinion they had covered it better than you. I waited for your issue only to be disappointed when it was too late to really matter.

Andy Librande

Editorial page blues

Dear Editor,

I am writing this letter in regard to the deterioration in the quality of intellectual journalism on the editorials page.

The new editorials editor has proved himself to be an irresponsible journalist time and time again.

It is his job to ensure that the editorials page represents a balanced cross-section of Clarion readers, yet every week we are being inundated with politically right editorials void of any opposing argument.

It is a heavy responsibility that the editorials editor has to present all views on an issue and engender open and informed dialogue, but at the same time, it is his most important job.

Because you have fallen down on this job, Mr. McGahey, the reputation of the Clarion has suffered.

More specifically, a responsible editorials writer bases what he writes in fact. In “Progress or filibuster,” May 3, there is no evidence upon which to base your claim that Democrats are employing filibusters out of fear or spite as this article argues.

It is naCB/ve to think that Democrats alone are gumming up the works of recent Senate sessions.

Your Republicans are equally guilty. In fact, CNN reported last week that of the 30 judicial nominees filibustered (I assume that the unidentified nominees to which you refer in your last paragraph are these judicial nominees), 80 percent of those filibusters were initiated by members of the GOP.

I suggest that you begin taking an active role in presenting a more balanced page if you are interested in maintaining your readership.

Thank you,

James Meissen, BA ’98

More on Bush

Dear Editor,

I read with some humor the rather reactionary blasting of the Clarion editor-in-chief by George Powell (Class of 1966), a self-labeled “student publications alum.”

With great passion, Mr. Powell derides the Clarion editor for committing the ultimate sin of actually not viscerally hating President George W. Bush simply because the writer is an editor of a student newspaper.

Mr. Powell then invokes the names of previous Clarion editors as his examples of First Amendment giants that would, presumably, never have engaged in such editorial blasphemy.

Evidently, Mr. Powell feels that only anti-Bush rhetoric is genuine free speech, while anything that resembles agreement with this president on any subject is nothing more than being “fawningly subservient.”B

It is also interesting that, as a “student publications alum,” Mr. Powell finds it acceptable to name previous Clarion editors as examples of his obviously extreme politics without, evidently, contacting those editors to document properly their opinions on the matter.B

Such is a sad commentary on Mr. Powell’s journalistic ethics.B

And that he aims such unfounded weapons against a Clarion editor well within his editorial rights and responsibilities to speak in support of the presidentt’s only compounds Mr. Powell’s offense of the First Amendment.

It’s time to grow up, Mr. Powell.B And take a high school journalism class while you’re at it.

Doug Antoon

Clarion editor in chief, 1979

We welcome editorials of 500 words or less and letters of 150 words or less from all political and social views from any member of our readership or the community. Please send them to clarioneditorials@yahoo.com