David
12-17-2008, 11:42 AM
Innuendo, conjecture
Editor:
I recent weeks R-J columnist Glenn Richter has taken some heat over a number of his articles critical of Barack Obama. He has responded that the criticisms were unfounded because he was providing a reasoned questioning of Obama’s positions and policies.
The issue is not that Glenn Richter has an opinion, which is his job a columnist at a legitimate newspaper. The issue is that Glenn’s articles did not address any of Obama’s positions or proposals. He only focused on Obama’s associations. He referenced a number of sources to support his opinions that were only based on innuendo, conjecture and lies.
On 10/19/08 Glenn attacked ACORN and Obama’s connection to it. The first part that ACORN was a massive voter fraud campaign was an absolute lie and Obama was a major player in the organization. A little fact-checking would have helped Glenn to avoid this topic. Glenn based his opinion on an article written by Stanley Kurz of the National Review. This article was absolute conjecture, as Kurz sums up this article with the “I have no final answer, but the question needs to be pursued further.”
In his article of 10/26/08, Richter references Walter E. Williams of George Mason University to prove that Obama is a radical disciple of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s. The problem is that Williams’ option is conjecture with absolutely no knowledge that Obama was present for any of the controversial sermons. On 11/02/08, Glenn does his “Bill of Rights” diatribe (which was totally refuted in Eric Cotton’s column), who actually did some research. He then followed that with the “civilian security force” article, which again was totally wrong and with a little research he would have known the basis of this article was a lie.
Glenn’s criticism of Obama has nothing to do with who Obama is and what he has said and done. It is strictly based on far right blogs with Glenn accepting them as factual with no due diligence on his part. He should really rename his column “Glenn’s Constricted Intellect Blogosphere.”
If Glenn wanted to learn a little about who Barack Obama is, he should look at his actions after he was elected president of the Harvard Law School. He kept two conservative editors in their top positions, much to the dismay of his liberal supporters, because he felt they were the most qualified. Glenn has attempted to paint Obama as a far left radical liberal, closet Communist, based on nothing but innuendo, conjecture and lies.
I feel that the readership of the Record-Journal expects a lot more from one of the paper’s featured journalists.
WILLIAM MIKSITZ, MERIDEN
Editor:
I recent weeks R-J columnist Glenn Richter has taken some heat over a number of his articles critical of Barack Obama. He has responded that the criticisms were unfounded because he was providing a reasoned questioning of Obama’s positions and policies.
The issue is not that Glenn Richter has an opinion, which is his job a columnist at a legitimate newspaper. The issue is that Glenn’s articles did not address any of Obama’s positions or proposals. He only focused on Obama’s associations. He referenced a number of sources to support his opinions that were only based on innuendo, conjecture and lies.
On 10/19/08 Glenn attacked ACORN and Obama’s connection to it. The first part that ACORN was a massive voter fraud campaign was an absolute lie and Obama was a major player in the organization. A little fact-checking would have helped Glenn to avoid this topic. Glenn based his opinion on an article written by Stanley Kurz of the National Review. This article was absolute conjecture, as Kurz sums up this article with the “I have no final answer, but the question needs to be pursued further.”
In his article of 10/26/08, Richter references Walter E. Williams of George Mason University to prove that Obama is a radical disciple of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s. The problem is that Williams’ option is conjecture with absolutely no knowledge that Obama was present for any of the controversial sermons. On 11/02/08, Glenn does his “Bill of Rights” diatribe (which was totally refuted in Eric Cotton’s column), who actually did some research. He then followed that with the “civilian security force” article, which again was totally wrong and with a little research he would have known the basis of this article was a lie.
Glenn’s criticism of Obama has nothing to do with who Obama is and what he has said and done. It is strictly based on far right blogs with Glenn accepting them as factual with no due diligence on his part. He should really rename his column “Glenn’s Constricted Intellect Blogosphere.”
If Glenn wanted to learn a little about who Barack Obama is, he should look at his actions after he was elected president of the Harvard Law School. He kept two conservative editors in their top positions, much to the dismay of his liberal supporters, because he felt they were the most qualified. Glenn has attempted to paint Obama as a far left radical liberal, closet Communist, based on nothing but innuendo, conjecture and lies.
I feel that the readership of the Record-Journal expects a lot more from one of the paper’s featured journalists.
WILLIAM MIKSITZ, MERIDEN