DaytonDailyNews.com

Barack Obama is no Lincoln

One must wonder if Leonard Pitts Jr. has any idea how dumb and insulting he portrays himself when he takes out of context what Rush Limbaugh said ("I hope he fails"). In short, what Limbaugh said was that he wants our new president to fail in turning our republic into a socialist state.

As a conservative, I'm glad to see a black elected president, but I'm not happy that he's also our first socialist.

Barack Obama portrays himself as the second coming of Abraham Lincoln. Hardly. President Lincoln greatly respected the form of government our nation's founders created. In fact, he fought a four-year war to preserve it.

As a presidential candidate, Obama ran a vacuous campaign promising hope and change. But then if he were honest, I don't think the American people would have supported the idea of more government and less freedom.

The question now is, "Are there any Republicans who are willing to fight the media and Democrats to save our republic?"

— Dale H. Gudorf

Beavercreek

What does Pitts know about history?

Re "E-mail: 'You ravage Bush we ravage Obama'," Feb. 1: What makes Leonard Pitts Jr. an expert on whether President George W. Bush was a great president or not? Pitts states, "I did, indeed 'ravage' Bush. He was, in my estimate, the worst president in memory if not the worst ever."

It is obvious that Pitts is out of touch with what historians are saying about the presidency of Bush.

In England, Andrew Roberts, a British historian, was asked if from his "perspective as a historian whether George W. Bush was the worst president of the 20th century, or might be the worst president in American history" (Telegraph, 1/15/09). Roberts stated, "I think he's a good president" which he bases on Bush's actions after 9/11 and how it has kept this country safe. He further bases this decision on the "key facts" of Bush's presidency, not the "loud ambient noise of the 24-hour news cycle."

Therefore, once again, I ask: What makes Pitts an expert on judging whether President George W. Bush was a good or great president or not?

— Randall W. Klotz

Germantown

No socialist would vote for stimulus

Re the letter "Pitts doesn't understand," Feb. 1: Conservatives like Rush Limbaugh who characterize the stimulus or the bailout as socialism clearly have a very poor understanding of economics. I think they must be either in denial about, or trying to deflect attention from, the recent failures of capitalism. The free market, contrary to its own propaganda, is not self-regulating, and tends toward deregulation, declining wages and asset bubbles. It therefore relies on government intervention in times of crisis. No self-respecting socialist would vote for these packages, because their intention is to revive capitalism, something that should be made obvious by the fact that established financial periodicals all over the world have called for their passage.

And frankly, as a proud American socialist, I'm offended by the continuous misrepresentation of my beliefs in the media. Some of the greatest Americans were socialists, like Albert Einstein and Helen Keller. Socialism is not synonymous with government spending, a welfare state, or centralized planning, but can be defined more broadly as economic democracy and collective ownership.

People are entitled to their reservations about economic alternatives, but to accept that the current system is the best possible is a resignation to the powers that be and a failure of imagination.

— Mary Loritz

Springboro