Ryan's voting record at odds with his rhetoric
Re: "Ryan slams Obama, electrifies the GOP," Aug. 30
Rep. Paul Ryan had the temerity to say during hisconvention speech: "[Democrats] have no answer to this simplereality: We need to stop spending money we don't have." Truth be told, Ryan is not a"deficit hawk" but a political opportunist.
Lest we notforget, this is the same congressman who voted for Medicare Part D, the Troubled Asset Relief Program and every defense spending increase during hispolitical career. He seems to wholeheartedly support DickCheney's witticism that "deficits don't matter."
Ryan's feeble attempt at defining himself with one speech does not get the job done, no matter how much those whose only intent is to extricate President Obama from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. by any means necessary would hope. It would be an easier sell to the American people if Ryan had a record ofaccomplishment and/or service to our country. However, he is sorely lacking on both counts.
He never served in any branch of the armed forces and basically went directly from college to working for legislators Bob Kasten, Sam Brownback and Jack Kemp before being elected to Congress in 1998.
I submit that this is not the individual we want one heartbeat away from thepresidency. I am inclined to believe that the majority ofAmerican voters will concur and say thanks butno thanks to the Romney-Ryan ticket.
Marvin E. Adams
Obama will do well as a public speaker
Re: "Do voters feel sorry for Obama?" Washington Secrets, Aug. 29
Voters "feel sorry for Obama," accounting for his "staying ahead of Republican Mitt Romney in the presidential race," suggests Paul Bedard. But if voters want the best for President Obama, they ought to let him start a new career in January as a public speaker.
If Obama follows Bill Clinton's lead, he can earn $10 million a year.
I will vote for Mitt Romney to bring freedom to the economy, but I wish President Obama as much success as he can earn from admirers who voluntarily buy seats to bask in his eloquence.
David P. Hayes
'Religious zealots' also fought for equal rights
Re: "Most 'right-to-lifers' are scientifically ignorant," From Readers, Aug. 29
DinoDrudiaccuses pro-lifers of ignorance, but only demonstrates his own by using ad hominem and guilt-by-association fallacies and fantastic generalizations over science and truth.
He complains that "the anti-abortion movement has primarily been a religious movement," seemingly ignorant of the religious origins of other movements (anti-slavery, civil rights) that stood up for those with no legal voice. He pauses from his attack on pro-lifers to accuse some religious groups of relegating women to "second-class status," implying that only priests are fully Christian, a view that nobody holds.
Drudi declares that pro-lifers ignore "Genesis' definition of human life as beginning with thenewborn'sfirst independent breath." But there is no"definition" of human life in Genesis or any mention of anewborn'sfirst breath. Genesis does mention God putting his own breath/spirit into the first fully formed man.
If his assertion that the "vast majority" of scientists support abortion is true, I would only note that the vast majority of scientific advances have required adjusting or correcting notions held by the "vast majority" of scientists and scholars in the past.
Eric J. Kingsepp