Tuesday, March 08, 2005

Newsday Letters To The Editor - Part 6

The Alliance held a contest to guess who the blogmob will try to take down next. Well if Newsday is any indicator for the feelings of the left, then I'd guess that Mallard Fillmore would be next. For the past month letters have been posted in Newsday about the winged-conservative and his bias cartooning. While the right-sided blogs have taken aim at the titans of liberal media, the left went after a gay-conservative reporter and a duck.

Newsday Letters To The Editor Conspiracy-meter
Green- low levels of conspiracy theorem
Yellow - for the mid-level conspiracy theories
Orange - represents the next level
Red - for the most absurd levels of conspiracy theorem
(The Red entries also get awarded an official
Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanie)

Click Here for Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5

More Mallard
OK, enough is enough! According to Mallard Fillmore,President Franklin Roosevelt's Social Security system is a Ponzi scheme. FDR wasone of our finest presidents - someone who pulled us out of a gut-wrenching Depression and worked with our allies to win World War II. It's astounding that Newsday continues to provide a forum for such a perverted view of revisionist
Ken Hansen - Brookhaven

The GOP's Toon
One gets the impression that Tinsley wakes up in the morning, reads the Republican National Committee talking points and writes his strip according to what those talking points say he's supposed to say. "Mallard Fillmore" is not conservative - it is an official mouth organ of the Republican Party masquerading as a comic strip.
Carl Fortunato-Manhattan

Defending Mallard
To all of the recent letter writers objecting to "Mallard Fillmore": Isn't it enough that liberal ideology dominates Newsday's editorial, opinion and news sections? Does a small comic strip need to be banished also? If you don't like it, don't read it. After all, "Doonesbury" hasn't had a funny strip in years, but I never even thought about attempting to have it removed. But that's the hypocrisy of liberals. They champion freedom of the press and freedom of speech - as long as they approve of the message.
Andrew Targovnik - Syosset

My advice to "Mallard" bashers: Regale yourselves in the leftist pap of James Klurfeld, Ellen Goodman, Les Payne, Joseph Dolman, Ellis Henican, Marie Cocco, Walt Handelsman, etc.
I'm sure the conservative philosophy of one cartoon will not cause the downfall of civilization.
Thomas H. Lynch - East Patchogue

The Bush tapes
Those who say the media are biased against President George W. Bush need to listen to more than "fair and balanced" Fox News. Then they would see that there is no bias. Case in point: Monica Lewinsky was taped without her knowledge by Linda Tripp, a woman claiming to be her friend. The conversations were of a personal nature, with Lewinsky confiding her affair with President Bill Clinton. The media were all over the story, and we were bombarded daily with the salacious details.
Fast-forward to 2005, and we have Bush's being taped by a friend so as to preserve the accuracy of his interviews for a planned book. The conversations took place before Bush's election as president and contain statements that, had they been made by President Clinton, would have been exploited until there was nothing left to exploit and then exploited some more. Yet, Doug Wead is criticized and even vilified for his actions.
Where are the media? Why are they not looking at Bush's words under a microscope? Why don't we hear more about what was said?Seems the media have swept it under the rug, along with Bush's deception about Iraq, his lies about Social Security and whatever other skeletons exist in his closet. When Bush's life is trashed like President Clinton's was, then and only then can anyone say the media are biased against him.
Kris Marasca - Westbury
(editor's note: Clinton's tapes were juicy and proved that he lied under oath. The media ignored the story until Drudge forced them to report it. The media dropped the story on Bush's tapes when they put Bush in a good light, there is the bias.)

If Bush is for it, I'm against it
Whenever I am confused about some government-proposed policies (such as the privatization of Social Security), I have found almost one sure-fire way to determine its merits: I see who are those for and who are against the proposals. President George W. Bush, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), et al., are very pro-privatization of Social Security. Knowing that these gentlemen's policies have for the most part been against the welfare of people, the veil of confusion has been lifted for me: It cannot have much merit, ergo, I am against it.
Joseph Brook - Whitestone
(Editor's note: who said they never met an honest liberal, here's one)