Negative campaign rhetoric won’t attract votes
To the editor:
Two months until Election Day. Finally, the real campaigners have emerged: "Muck" and "Mire."
I have yet to hear any candidate for federal, state or local office clearly define precisely what proactive and positive action he or she plans to take beginning on the first day in office. Thus far, all rhetoric details how rotten the opposition is. That does not help me to decide the best person for the important job of bringing our country up from its knees.
Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, Cuba’s Fidel Castro and Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are having a good laugh at our expense.
Robert S. Tobias
Las Vegas
Harry, Nancy club
To the editor:
Having read recent letters to the editor, I’ve concluded that your readers disagree on the ability of government to create jobs. Well, I think I can settle this issue.
Governments not only create jobs, they also control them. Those governments are generally called "communist." When Germany unified, the East had an instant 50 percent unemployment ratio because most of their industry was so inefficient it could not compete in a free market and had to be shut down. Their safety and environmental records were disastrous.
If this is what you wish for, then keep supporting big government, i.e. the Harry, Nancy and Barack club.
HANS BOHN
LAS VEGAS
Rory! Rory!
To the editor:
The Monday article by Benjamin Spillman on the debate between gubernatorial candidates Rory Reid and Brian Sandoval clearly showed that Mr. Reid won the debate. It also showed how upset the Republicans are getting that Mr. Reid did win the debate.
On education, it is very clear Mr. Sandoval would do exactly what Gov. Jim Gibbons did and more — which is cut and cut. Mr. Reid has said where the money would come from to save our education system, which has been rated the lowest in the nation during Gov. Gibbons’ tenure. The citizens of Nevada don’t want more property taxes in a time of a recession. But as your own polls show, we think that taxes should be increased on mining and the casinos.
Mr. Sandoval has stated over and over that there will be "no new taxes." So how will you meet a budget of $3 billion? By cutting jobs, schools and whatever else you can think of.
And why would you give parents an estimated $100 million in vouchers when the public schools need less than that amount to continue?
Our unemployment level is the highest in the nation, and our education is rated the lowest in the nation. Do you want us to vote for Mr. Sandoval to continue to do the same? I think not.
Michelle Bracey
Las Vegas
Don’t vote ‘none’
To the editor:
I was extremely troubled when I read the front-page article in Friday’s Review-Journal about voters wishing for other choices in the U.S. Senate race. The article stated that many people have decided to protest by voting for "none of these candidates."
Although that decision may be satisfying for the moment, people need to recognize that this equates to a vote for Harry Reid. Nevadans need to decide if our state and, in fact, our very nation can afford six more years of Harry Reid.
People say that we can’t afford to lose Harry Reid. We are told that because he is the Senate majority leader, he is a great asset to the state of Nevada. I would like to ask: What has he done for us lately? He has long since stopped being an advocate for the people of Nevada, and instead is just a rubber stamp for the failed policies of Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi.
Most Americans believe that the country is going in the wrong direction and Harry Reid is a major part of the problem.
Maybe GOP candidate Sharron Angle was not the first choice for many of us — and maybe she isn’t the slickest candidate — but she is the only person who can stop Harry Reid. "None of these candidates" cannot be sworn into to office.
Sharon Charters
Henderson
Who cares?
To the editor:
In Byron York’s Friday column, he expressed his concern that there is confusion over Barack Obama’s religion. Is he also concerned with how many times Mr. Obama has sexual relations with his wife? Of course not. That is completely personal and has no effect on his qualifications as president.
But apparently, Mr. York believes his religion does have an effect.
If our president really wants to uphold the Constitution, his religion should be separated from his presidential respon-sibilities. Unless, of course, you believe that a Protestant is more qualified to be president than a Catholic, and a Jew more qualified than a Muslim, or anyone being more qualified than an atheist.
If we truly believe in freedom of religion and separation of religion and government, then the religion of any elected or appointed official should not be a factor. Unfortunately, too many voters consider a candidate’s religion to determine his qualification to govern.
Mel Lipman
Las Vegas
