Open Letter to Mr. Juan Williams â€“ Part I
By: Michael John McCrae
Dear Mr. Williams,
I read your opinion piece published on FoxNews.com, August 12, 2011 entitled: â€œDebate Shows GOP Is Out of Step With Realities of Today’s Americaâ€ and I must say I really thought you were a critical thinker; willing to actually view two sides of any argument objectively. I canâ€™t believe how wrong that assumption was. From your opening paragraph to your conclusion your piece reeks of liberalism. I believe you miss your work at NPR. Fox News had taken up your cause for a seemingly unjust firing but I feel bad for NPR now; that they fired such a strong, liberal sycophant. NPR has only weakened its army of biased liberal Obama-thumpers and they are the worse for it.
You incredibly began your piece by disparaging a group of people largely from your own generation as you began: â€œLast night’s debate put on display a Republican Party that still looks like a 1950s Oldsmobile as they prepare to run against one of the hip, new hybrids coming out the multi-national car companies that now run Detroit.â€
What does that make you Mr. Williams? Does Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, or Mitt Romney look like a 1950 Oldsmobile? And as that goes, I believe a 1950 Oldsmobile would out-perform any of the latest â€œhybridsâ€ on American roads today as far as endurance, distance and safety. The larger 1950 engine; unencumbered by highly restrictive and very expensive 2011 CAFE Standards (that have cost the American economy thousands of jobs) wouldnâ€™t have to rely on a battery charger every 40 miles. In a head-on collision with a truck I believe Iâ€™d rather be in the Oldsmobile! How does Detroit recover when it is being forced to produce cars nobody wants? Has Detroit sold a 1000 â€œVoltsâ€ yet?
Then Mr. Williams, you continued your dead thought with this piece of tripe: â€œDespite his troubles, President Obama looks sleek, fast and so very hip as compared the Republicans on view in Iowa. The President remains the mixed-race, son-of-an immigrant, in touch with the under 30 crowd that makes up about half of 2011 America.â€
So your criteria for what makes a good president is â€œhipnessâ€, â€œsleeknessâ€ and an ability to connect with â€œunder 30 crowdâ€…600 of which were just arrested in a Detroit drug crackdown; another 50 of which were just arrested on the streets of Philadelphia; another 200 of which were running the streets, beating up white people at the Wisconsin State Fair and the several hundred that have been involved in Chicago â€œflash mobsâ€; not to mention the two under 30, New Black Panther thugs who were intimidating voters in the last election.
Too, that President Obama â€œremains the mixed-race, son-of-an immigrantâ€ and cannot claim to be a â€œnatural bornâ€ American citizen doesnâ€™t seem to bother you. That there have been only seven different forged birth certificates offered as proof Obama was born in Hawaii; while not one true certificate has been located doesnâ€™t seem to bother you. That Obamaâ€™s Selective Service Card was a fake didnâ€™t bother anyone on the left. That Obama has a Social Security number originating from Connecticut when neither he nor any family member ever lived there doesnâ€™t seem to bother you or any other liberal either. Heâ€™s â€œsleekâ€! Heâ€™s â€œhipâ€! And as long as heâ€™s got his teleprompter; heâ€™s articulate!
You wrote: It was not just the absence of dynamic people of color and women at the GOP debate that rankle young Americans, Hispanics, Asians, Blacks, working women, and immigrants. The answers coming from the candidates felt like the voice of your grandfather’s GOP.â€
I suppose that is why there was so much cheering from the Iowa crowd consisting of every one of those groups you mentioned! I suppose that is why; when the â€œgotchaâ€ questions were asked by the panel (and there were more than a few of those) that same mixed crowd registered their displeasured â€œBoosâ€! Where were all the Democrat women in all those Democrat debates? Where were all the â€œpeople of colorâ€? You mean like the race-baiting Jesse Jackson or the equally vile and malicious Al Sharpton or the female opportunist Hillary Clinton? Are they your idea of â€œdynamicâ€?
You wrote: â€œIt is hearing the only woman on the stage talking about being “submissive,” and “obedient.” And if that is the only thing you personally heard from Michele Bachmann then Mr. Williams, you are of all men most miserable. She spoke of respect. She spoke of love. She spoke of family. She spoke of Obamaâ€™s destruction of the country with the unconstitutional mandates of Obamacare. And she took everything Tim Pawlenty threw at her and tossed it right back without hesitation. Do you suppose that is why Congresswoman Bachmann ended up winning the Iowa Straw Poll? Your statement was extremely disingenuous!
And then you wrote: â€œOne of the most astounding parts of the debate for me was when the moderators polled the candidates and asked if they would oppose a deficit reduction package that included government spending cuts to tax increases by a ratio of 10:1. Every single candidate on the stage raised their hand in opposition. No tax increases under any circumstances.â€
I believe every one of those folks on stage knew that was a trick question. Without specifics, then the only possible answer was â€œnoâ€; even at ten to one. Every deal Democrats have ever made with Republicans is just like every deal Palestinians have ever made with Israel. Israel always gave up land while never receiving peace. Republicans always gave up tax increases and never received budget cuts. There is not much difference between Palestinian terrorists and Democrat, liberal, socialist tax and spenders when it comes to negotiating a deal. (By the way it was your liberal pals who labeled the TEA Party â€œterroristsâ€)
But your impression was: â€œThis puts the candidates out of step with the realities of America today, and American public opinion. As a CBS/New York Times poll from last week showed, a majority of Americans – in both political parties â€“ want to see tax increases on the wealthiest Americans in addition to spending cuts. By taking the no-new-taxes-pledge the candidates are even in disagreement majority of the Republicans â€“ the very people who will choose the nominee.â€
First I look at where the â€œpollâ€ came from. CBS/New York Times polls are biased. The respondents to their polls are majority liberal. The talking point â€œtax the richâ€ is nothing more than a prompt for class warfare. The grassroots TEA Party specifically calls for fewer taxes across the board and Democrats got shellacked in the 2010 election cycle because that message was so pervasive and persuasive among the more knowledgeable electorate. By the IRS own figures, the top 10 percent of wage earners in America already pay 60 percent of all federal taxes. The Top 50 percent pay 97 percent of all taxes while most of Obamaâ€™s constituency; amounting to about 50 percent of the electorate (those polled by CBS) pay only 3 percent of â€œrevenuesâ€ while collecting 99 weeks of unemployment checks and billions of dollars in food stamps.
I want the rich to keep more of their money. They are the job creators. They are the innovators. They stay in America when taxes are low. They leave America when overtaxed. (Just ask â€œJob Czarâ€ Jeff Immelt) The corporate rate in America should be 20 percent. That would entice overseas corporations to come to America. That was said more than once during the debate. You Mr. Williams, were not listening.