The University of Utah's Independent Student Voice

The Daily Utah Chronicle

The University of Utah's Independent Student Voice

The Daily Utah Chronicle

The University of Utah's Independent Student Voice

The Daily Utah Chronicle

Write for Us
Want your voice to be heard? Submit a letter to the editor, send us an op-ed pitch or check out our open positions for the chance to be published by the Daily Utah Chronicle.
Print Issues

In response to Mr. David Trotter’s letter.

By [email protected]

The just of what Nielsen said is 100% right. What Nielsen said is just repeating most of the political rhetoric heard today on any “real” news station. And for those of you in Rio Linda, that does not include CBS, ABC, NBC or CNN. Nielsen said, “Wake up and smell the moderation,” Feb. 28 and “Get it straight or lose in ’08,” March 1).” He talked about how many in America are moderate or would like to consider themselves moderate. Now by moderate you can also use the word independent. All Nielsen was saying is that, to win an election you have to appeal to a majority of people in key areas or interest groups.

Liberals can not do this, they haven’t been able to do it since Clinton. However, when Clinton lost steam is when he tried to forward his socialist agenda. When in office he only had a 59-62% approval rating. Folks, that is not much, especially when you consider that he didn’t do anything controversial. He wasn’t in a war with terror. He wasn’t forwarding democracy to other people who derserve it as much as anyone else does. He wasn’t trying to reform social security, other than to raise taxes to keep the program on life support. The only thing that he even tried to do was his ridiculous health care plan, which failed miserably.

Liberals like Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, and others, wanted to nationalize 1/7th of the nation’s economy. The majority of America doesn’t want socialized medicine. And it is not just doctors or health care professionals, folks. Socialized medicine is a bad idea, and Democrats or Liberals don’t understand the majority of America. People want to be able to choose their doctors. Doctors want to be able to choose their specialty, what school they go to, where in the country they practice. All this doesn’t even account for the effect medical reform of this nature would do to the “preciously, volatile” economy.

Now, I know that by now some of you out there reading this are most likely enraged by my statements today, but the facts are there. All you have to do is look. An issue before the election that Kerry and Edwards focused so hard on was the cost of healthcare. Democrats and liberals will tell you that this is because of a lack of health insurance or whatever. The fact is prices of everything (even healthcare) go up relative to the cost to produce goods or provide services. Doctors provide the service of healthcare. However, in order to do so they have to carry some insurance to do so, such as malpractice insurance. Malpractice insurance goes up and down every year, the only thing that changes is at what rate it goes up or down. Another bitter fact about healthcare is that frivolous lawsuits raise the cost of malpractice insurance which in turn raises the operating costs for doctors. Who files this ridiculous lawsuits, trial lawyers like John Edwards.

So in reponse to David Trotter’s comments in his letter to the editor, John Edwards was never a viable candidate for the US presidency. We wouldn’t be evaluating squat if Edwards had been the nominee. He would have lost by a bigger margin than Kerry did.

I have many questions for Mr. Trotter, but the first is regarding his foreign policy soultions. Again he continues to use the same old rhetoric of the Democratic Left Wing Party, by saying “where are the WMDs?” They were there, or why else would Saddam have been obstructing the inspectors (of the U.N., mind you), moving the weapons, and supoorting terrorist regimes or organiztaions.

Continuing with his I hate Bush policies, Trotter starts in on Social Security Reform. Again, this brings to light more questions, and not just for Mr. Trotter. When you die where does your money, the money that you worked for and put into social security, go? It goes back to the government, folks. Why should the government get that money as theirs when you die? Shouldn’t you be able to pass it on to your heirs? These may seem like simple questions, sure, and the answers are just as simple. Bush stated what he was going to do in his State of the Union address. He was going to take suggestions on how to fix the program. Nothing was off the table. Privitization is only one of the options on the table. Now, Mr. Trotter claims that he trusts the government more than the private sector. Great, “Yip-yip-yahoo.” Then stay in the current social security program. The privitization options that Bush talks about are the same that federal empolyees currently get called the Thrift Savings Program. It is 100% optional, and you don’t have to participate. What about this prgram still doen’t make sense?

As far as the comments about the AARP go, the reason the AARP doesn’t want to see the proposed Social Security Reform is because under the current system they are getting grants, kickbacks, or federal funding in some shape or form, and are afraid of losing it. One more final comment on the issue of Social Security Reform though, look at the approval numbers. If there is anyone out there still wondering why George W. Bush got re-elected, just look at the numbers. People between the ages of 30 and 55 support the reform at a rate of 48%. The rate of support goes up the younger you go. People under the age of 30 support the reform at a rate of 62%. Sixty-two percent, folks. Democrats would have killed for those kind of numbers when it came to their healthcare reform.

In Mr. Trotter’s credit however, he was RIGHT about one thing. You can find it in the last two paragraphs of his letter. And for those of you who cant find them or are too lazy to go get them I have them for you here. Mr. Trotter said, “But, in the end, the writer has one correct point: The Democrats need to nominate more moderate and conservative candidates. Hillary will not win. Also, she is the GOP’s biggest fund-raiser. If the Democrats want to win in the next election, pick a candidate that the people want, not the candidate of the party’s liberal elites.” Mr. Trotter I fully agree. The Democrats need to find out what they are going to do as a party, or they will continue to lose elections by greater margins. They haven’t held the majority in Congress since 1994; and have lost the presidency of the US twice; and they continue to lose support when elections in Ukraine, Afghanistan, and Iraq succeed.

So there it is folks, take it as you will. Logic. Facts. Evidence. Conservatism. It’s a beautiful thing.

Aaron Cromar

Incoming Freshman, Political Science

Leave a Comment

Comments (0)

We welcome feedback and dialogue from our community. However, when necessary, The Daily Utah Chronicle reserves the right to remove user comments. Posts may be removed for any of the following reasons: • Comments on a post that do not relate to the subject matter of the story • The use of obscene, threatening, defamatory, or harassing language • Comments advocating illegal activity • Posts violating copyrights or trademarks • Advertisement or promotion of commercial products, services, entities, or individuals • Duplicative comments by the same user. In the case of identical comments only the first submission will be posted. Users who habitually post comments or content that must be removed can be blocked from the comment section.
All The Daily Utah Chronicle Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *