Re “Bachmann took aid from Uncle Sam,” June 26, and “Bachmann denies that she benefited from federal aid,” June 27
It’s astonishing that Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) is actually being considered as a candidate for the United States presidency.
On her financial disclosure form, she identifies the amount of money she’s received from a family-owned, government-subsidized farm, but then tells Fox News, “I have never gotten a penny from it.” When CBS asked for her opinion on farm subsidies, she expressed outrage at an increase in the use of limousines in Washington. And while she recommends ending everyone else’s government subsidies, those going to her husband’s mental health clinic are good ones.
Meanwhile, since campaigning leaves Bachmann no time for a whole American history course, if she just watched “Gone With the Wind,” that’d be useful. It wouldn’t fix everything, but at least she might realize that our Founding Fathers did not end slavery.
Judy Balaban Quine
You’re kidding, right? Is it really front-page news that a lawmaker took advantage of federal money available under spending she opposed? Wouldn’t it have been irresponsible not to get a piece for her district if it was going to be spent somewhere anyway?
I’ll believe this is not a partisan hit job when I see another front-page story detailing the rank hypocrisy of Democrats who, despite decrying the supposedly grossly unfair Bush tax rates on “the rich,” not only pay those rates but take advantage of all available deductions — and then fail to write a check to the Treasury to pay their “fair share.”
I see that Bachmann considers her political candidacy to be guided by God. But since many of the Republican candidates are deeply religious, how are we to know which one God wants to win?
His silence makes any claim to God’s vote non-refutable but also non-supportable.
One God, one vote!
Bankrupt at the ballpark
Re “Dodgers seek bankruptcy protection,” June 28
Frank McCourt’s bankruptcy filing is a black mark on the McCourts and their personal life, not the Dodger players and fans. We have been here much longer than they have, and we will be here long after they are gone. I am waiting for them to leave to buy my season tickets again.
The McCourts’ lifestyle overshadowed every aspect of our beloved team. They ought to let someone with a personal interest in our team take it over.
We love and support the Dodgers and will see a World Series win again, but without the McCourts.
Here’s one Dodger fan hoping that Frank McCourt can retain control of the Dodgers. As a lifelong Dodger fan, my most satisfying years have been under McCourt.
Since 1988, Dodger fans suffered through many dry years. Before McCourt bought the team, the Dodgers won a total of one playoff game, thanks to the late pitcher Jose Lima. Under McCourt, the Dodgers have been in two National League Championship Series.
The problem is that the Dodgers haven’t spent money wisely. The millions wasted on expensive but disappointing players could have greatly improved the team if spent better.
Hopefully the Dodgers can get back on track. But I, for one, have had plenty of reasons to cheer under McCourt.
Dodgers announcer Vin Scully is the epitome of class. However, after such an illustrious career, it’s a shame that he had to get involved with the classless owners of the Dodgers.
Scully is listed as an unsecured creditor in the Dodgers’ Chapter 11 filing. With this embarrassing announcement, Scully should now be considered for sainthood if he chooses to finish out this season.
After 62 years with the Dodgers, he truly deserves a better sendoff to retirement than having part of his salary end up in Bankruptcy Court at the young age of 83.
Dear Mr. McCourt:
You said baseball turned its back on the Dodgers. No, baseball turned its back on you.
You mismanaged one of the signature franchises in baseball. Your leadership resulted in bankruptcy. Before assigning blame to others, look in a mirror.
The Rolling Stones said it best: “You can’t always get what you want … you get what you need.”
We all know what you need to do. Now do it. Sell the Dodgers.
Remember when saying “Hey, how about them Dodgers?” was a way to avoid an argument?
Re “House reprimands Obama on Libya,” June 25
The House of Representatives’ recent decision to perpetuate the hostilities in Libya by rejecting a measure to cut funds from the mission comes as no surprise. Despite overwhelming disapproval of the war by both parties, a majority of lawmakers decided to continue funding the White House’s operation.
Such a contradiction reminds voters of the nature of Washington: the usual complaints with few to no solutions. When President Obama seeks to continue the Libya mission through wordplay, Congress yips; yet when faced with the decision, those aggravated fail to act.
Legislators who point to a dangerous precedent set by the White House in maneuvering around the War Powers Act have scored a similar achievement by failing to act. Our legislators should have voted with conviction.
Re “Dishing dirt on sheriff’s captains,” Column One, June 24
I got a few good chuckles reading some of the Los Angeles County deputies’ comments about their leaders. More often than not, simple truth is at the very core of humor. So Sheriff’s Department spokesman Steve Whitmore scoffs at the survey results, calling them “scrawls on a public wall.”
I find it offensive that the department doesn’t take its deputies’ opinions seriously. After all, they are the ones in the trenches.
The top brass should put down the microscope and pick up the mirror. As a woman of a certain age, it isn’t always easy to look in the mirror, but if I don’t see my reflection staring back, how can I improve my appearance?
Ramona Salinas Saenz
Re “Obama’s patronage machine,” Editorial, June 24
Why the surprise at what you call “Obama’s patronage machine”? The man has spent his entire political career in Chicago. His former chief of staff is now the mayor, and his current chief of staff is the former mayor’s brother. That’s how it’s done in Chicago.
Hopefully, you will approach the coming presidential campaign, which already seems to be taking up much of Obama’s time, with less “hope and change” and more objectivity.
Re “Iran slams U.S. on drone strikes,” June 26
When a man blows himself up in a crowded market square in Afghanistan, we call it a terrorist attack. When a U.S. unmanned drone annihilates a wedding party, we call it collateral damage.
Therefore, the U.S. definition of a terrorist must be someone who has a bomb but lacks the aircraft to deliver it.
Stephen C. Lee