Democrats stand for values? Perhaps — for swingers

To the editor:

I would like to respectfully decline writer Todd W. Byington’s invitation to “values voters” to join the Democratic Party (Wednesday letter).

I decline this despicable notion, and I can only surmise that Mr. Byington has either recently moved to this country from another planet or perhaps he has been living in an isolated cave somewhere in the Middle East.

Does he honestly believe his own words when he repugnantly refers to the Democratic Party as “the party of simple family values”? Does participating in an extra-marital affair with a White House intern epitomize “family values”? Does lying to millions of Americans support the “simple family values” way of life? These are the “family values” first and foremost on my mind when I think of the word “Democrat” in regard to that party’s past presidents and presidential candidates.

Mr. Byington, if these are your ideas of “simple family values” I want you to stay as far away from my family as humanly possible.

Gary Mahoney

LAS VEGAS

Glass houses

To the editor:

I found it interesting that letter writer Todd W. Byington sees the Democratic Party as the source of values in politics.

His Wednesday letter criticized Republican vice presidential nominee and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin for having poor parenting skills because of her 17-year-old daughter’s pregnancy.

I was reminded of the picture of true party values as I thought of President Clinton having sexual relations with an intern in the Oval Office and presidential candidate John Edwards having his extramarital affair while he was campaigning for office.

Be very careful when you throw rocks and live in a glass house.

Jeff Dwyer

LAS VEGAS

Sexist agenda

To the editor:

Why are some people asking whether Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin can continue to be a good wife and mother and hold a high political office?

Do they ever ask a male whether he can still be a good husband and father and hold such an office?

We have experienced too many times when males flunk these obligations.

Nita Andrews

BOULDER CITY

No choice

To the editor:

In response to your Aug. 31 Viewpoints commentaries on secret ballots vs. “card checks” in union elections:

It is obvious that writer Mark Weisbrot cares little about the dangers of the so-called “Employee Free Choice Act.” This union-sponsored legislation will deprive employees of their basic right to voting secrecy and result in even greater union control of workers’ rights, higher costs of doing business and more movement of jobs to overseas suppliers.

Unions care little about their members or the general welfare of all citizens. Their objective is to gain power and further advance a socialist agenda.

The “Employee Free Choice Act” is not “free choice” — it is a club for unions to wield against employees’ free will.

Martin Shainen

LAS VEGAS

Pundits strike out

To the editor:

To paraphrase Michelle Obama, “For the first time in my adult life I am proud” of the Republican Party for choosing Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin for vice president; not because she was the best choice, but because her nomination was the nail in the coffin of the pundits.

Next to the politicians, the pundits are the most arrogant, hollow-brained people in the country, and they should remain in their confines forever.

Jask Asgar

LAS VEGAS

The death of Las Vegas

To the editor:

The Aug. 31 commentary on the slow death of gaming through advanced technology (“Interaction, winning give way to gadgets, losing”) hit the nail on the head. It really is the death of Las Vegas.

Twenty years ago, at locals casinos, you had to stand in line to get a poker machine because they were full-pay machines. As a former slot technician and floor person, I can say there are no full-pay machines anymore.

Gamblers play to win money, not a T-shirt or some other cheap item with a casino logo. It’s just like taxes: If casinos let players keep more money, they will spend more. Let people win and they will play and come back tomorrow.

This is what happened when the casinos became corporations. In the old days, the casinos were owned and operated by gamblers who knew what the players wanted — and made sure they got it.

James Goldsmith

NORTH LAS VEGAS

Gaming and drilling

To the editor:

For many years, I believed that the casino industry exerted powerful influence over Nevada’s politicians. That appears not to be the case, in view of recent behavior by some of our local casino executives.

In just the past couple of weeks, some casino executives have gone on record to support higher room taxes and higher payroll taxes, and some attended Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s National Clean Energy Summit.

So let me get this straight — in an economy where gaming volume is down and casino construction projects are closing, they want to increase the size of our already wasteful and inefficient government and then hold hands and sing “Kumbaya” with Harry Reid?

Nothing could be more important to the casino industry than keeping taxes low and having affordable fuel. These executives should use whatever power they have left and demand that Sen. Reid stop stalling the Senate vote for more oil drilling.

Mike Mathews

LAS VEGAS

No change

To the editor:

Democrats Barack Obama and Joe Biden promise all Americans “change.” Both have mastered the art of bloviating, both are U.S. senators, and worst of all, they are both lawyers.

Change? Sounds like the same ol’, same ol’ to me.

Matthew Cox

LAS VEGAS

Unimaginative Reid

To the editor:

Review-Journal columnist John L. Smith writes that Nevada Sen. Harry Reid’s toughness and political clout are “paying dividends for Nevada Democrats” (Aug. 31 column).

That might be wonderful if it meant anything to the average citizen instead of just for the Democratic politicians who share his liberal views and his odd obsession for condemning President Bush for every fault known to mankind.

Mr. Smith’s comments are unwarranted. Mr. Bush’s popularity is low, but Sen. Reid and Congress are rated even lower, not quite half of Mr. Bush’s rating.

Sen. Harry Reid isn’t tough, he is better described as the little guy in the back of the classroom whose every act and word is mocked by the big guys who sit up front and then ignore him in the hall — that would be the Kennedy and Kerry types in the Senate now instead of classroom roughnecks in Searchlight.

The old boxer is stubborn and unimaginative. On the latter character flaw, he is being taken advantage of by members of his own party and perhaps even his own staff. At best, he’s a waif in a position that requires a dominating persona. I doubt very much that any other senator wonders what Sen. Reid will think or do when he or she decides on anything they have under consideration.

The Jan. 19 Nevada presidential caucus Sen. Reid boasted of was nothing and proved nothing; had it been considered worthy of concern it would have had the same results as Michigan and Florida, who jumped the gun and became a distraction. No one cared about Nevada’s paltry caucus.

Nevada deserves better than to have Harry Reid as Senate majority leader. He states that America’s standing is the world is gone, but that isn’t true. What is possible is that Nevada’s standing in the United States is at a low because of Sen. Reid and the coterie of liberals he has thrown in with. We are stuck with his quaint notions — for now.

Vernon Clayson

LAS VEGAS

TOP NEWS
News Headlines
ad-infeed_1
ads_infeed_2
Local Spotlight
Add Event
Home Front Page Footer Listing
Circular
You May Like

You May Like