I do indeed take exception to your first Views and also to the second Views, which is an attempt to justify the inflammatory first one. No one is suggesting you compromise your personal biases, however, counterproductive and incendiary they may be. However, as a highly visible public figure in this community you should have the good judgment to be impartial and temperate in your printed observations. This newspaper is not a lurid tabloid but supposedly a responsible public forum and as such should represent the high standards of thoughtful and considered journalism.
I am not a "Demo," a demeaning term; no one calls Republicans "Repubs." I am not a Democrat even; I happen to be an Independent. And the term Obamaniacs is equally derogatory, suggesting Obama supporters are mindless bubble brains. While I am flawed and fall short of the glory of God, no way am a bubble-brained. This tactic is tacky and unacceptable to thoughtful people. While I am certain your Views get high fives from a good portion of your readers, that per se does not make them justified and valid.
The thrust of the second Views seems to be a comparison between the election of 2004 and 2008. In the latter you will recall there were no dangling chads, no Florida secretary of state trying very hard to call the shots, no Supreme Court involvement. The results were straight forward and transparent, very different from 2004. Small wonder there was a coherent outcry with the 2004 election. We were the butt of jokes around the world.
The editor is the head honcho and sets the tone of a mainline, responsible newspaper. So act like it.
