Now your opinion writers are masking their invective. I thought it was a new and fair Dan Rodricks in the first two paragraphs of his recent column ("Razing the JFX, lowering O's expectations," April 3) that reflected the headline. But the remainder of the column was the usual rationalization of President Barack Obama's poor health care law. Healthcare should be improved — coverage for uninsured and an extra year for kids is fine. But we don't need 2,000-plus pages to do that. And why not add tort reform (Oh, President Obama is a lawyer, I get it ) and the ability to sell insurance across state lines? President Obama claimed he was going to be non-partisan — another of his many untruths.
Why are only the conservative judges mentioned? Aren't the liberal ones just as wrongly opinionated? And, by the way, if this was a George W. Bushera issue and Elena Kagan did not recuse herself, your paper would be all over that. It is morally wrong for her to vote on something she had a part in.
Why so many waivers to Mr. Obama's friends? Why did many states get favors to get their senators to vote for this monstrosity? Why was the use of the reconciliation process not vilified. (You know if President Bush used that process to pass Social Security reform, you would have been all over him.)
- Republicans may hate Obamacare, but it's still the law of the land and the president is obliged to enforce it [Letter]
- Good to see GOP rally behind Obamacare [Letter]
- Medicare's pleasant surprise [Editorial]
- Obamacare cartoons [Pictures]
- Naked modeling
- The roll-out
See more photos »
- Barack Obama
- Elena Kagan
Come on, guys. We need an ombudsman back at your paper to help us little non-elite guys and gals who will pay the freight when the piper (China) calls (See Greece and Spain and Ireland — and more countries to come).
Lyle Rescott, Marriottsville