They published it on Sept 8:
About this time three years ago, editor
Ashley Burns wrote an editorial for the
Future claiming Bush would go down in
history as one of the “greatest presidents”
because of his response to Hurricane
It’s sad to see ideology continuing to
tarnish your opinion and the paper’s reputation.
It is insulting to everyone’s intelligence,
not to mention every state legislator
and senator, because they don’t
“directly” govern. Crafting domestic initiatives,
foreign policy and treaties are
more qualification than a small state governor
who only has an ethics investigation
for abuse of power to show for her
A balanced article would have at least
addressed some of the many concerns
people have about her.
Your article mentioned zilch about
her raising taxes as governor, supporting
the “bridge to nowhere” before she
opposed it, pursuing pork-barrel projects
as mayor, trying to ban books she didn’t
like at Wasilla’s local library, her extreme
views on social issues, her active support
(and her husband’s membership) of the
Alaska Independence Party, and her
claim that the war in Iraq is “a task from
God.”Hopefully the American people
will realize that someone who is more
extreme than Cheney and less experienced
than Quayle is not a recipe for the
change we need.
Others did as well. The one above me:
I was plagued by a nagging question
after reading your glowing appraisal of
Sarah Palin in Wednesday’s paper. That
question was: Seriously? Sarah Palin? The
Sarah Palin who, barely a month ago,
acknowledged that she doesn’t even
know what the vice president does? The
Sarah Palin who has yet to even take a
definable position on most major political
issues? The Sarah Palin who is currently
under investigation for abuse of
could tell you about her strong ties to the
Alaska Independence Party, an Alaskan
secessionist party whose leader said,
“The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared
to my hatred for the American
government.” I could tell you all this and
more, but instead I will simply ask: Seriously,
Seriously. On Sept 10, the fomer editor I called out, Ashley Burns, wrote a LENGTHY response. It's archived here. (As is the original endorsement for Palin, and my response).
He accuses me of holding a "grudge". Not so, I just tend to remember fantastic stories--such as that George W. Bush will be regarded as a great president BECAUSE of his response to Katrina.
He also called me and others who questioned Bush "Kanye Wests". Not the worst thing to be called--a multimillionaire rapper who happens to believe that Bush doesn't care for black people. (Wonder why?) No, Ashley, I am not a Kanye West. But I do think it amazing that Bush waited 5 DAYS to cut his vacation short while people were huddled on rooftops, starving and dying, before he did anything. I certainly don't think he deserves credit for, quote, being an "exceptional leader in a time of crisis". I don't think strumming a guitar and eating cake as NO drowned qualifies as good leadership. (Nor does reading a children's book after being told "our nation is under attack".)
He also accused me of not recalling the article ver batim--which I don't think is ever necessary when you do a response. That would be one LONG letter. But, unlike Burns' accusation, it was not factually inaccurate. The article praised Bush for his leadership in Katrina and even said that he would be a great president because of it. It was in the title! The only thing I got wrong is that Mr. Burns didn't actually pen the article--it was a staff writer that didn't get his name attached. Mr. Burns just approved it.
But it wasn't all bad. Ashley praised me at the end for my passion and even said I should write articles instead of letters.
I am not angry nor do I hold a grudge. I actually wrote the letter because I care about UCF and want the paper to be the best it can be. OF course it has every right to have the right-wing viewpoints addressed. It can even endorse whomever it wants, be it Palin, Bush, or LaRouche. The point of my response, which seemed to be lost, is that if you are going to endorse someone, you need to address all the issues--not just gush about the person or issue.
If you read the Orlando Sentinel, even though they endorse morons like Ric Keller and Tom Feeney in 2006, at least they wrote why. Here's XXX, and we understand people are concerned about YYY, but here is why those are mitigated....
The Sentinel and any other major newspaper doesn't fail to address concerns about a person just because they endorse someone. That way you can say you disagree, but it was a fair article. THAT is the point. I don't begrudge the Future because these are just college students who are learning, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be pointed out.