All News & Blogs
Your Oct. 28 editorial "Obama for president,"
"We recommend Obama because we believe everything he tells us, whereas we don't believe a word from Romney. The narrative constructed by our primary source, The Associated Press, for the last year, makes this the obvious conclusion."
Your endorsement lacks an objective contrast between the personal character, political leadership ability, and track record of the two candidates. Of course, an editorial reflects opinion. As your editorial illustrates, people can rationalize any viewpoint.
A thoughtful editorial could have crafted a coherent case for Obama and encouraged readers to positive dialogue. Your effort failed miserably. By lacking substance and seriousness, your piece merely promotes wasteful, heated rhetoric.
King GeorgeA rational case
After all the hysterical shouting we've seen this election season, it was reassuring to read a rational argument in Sunday's Free Lance-Star making the case for the best candidate for president.
Your endorsement of President Obama for a second term makes a lot of sense and takes into account the myriad factors at play in our country and the world. I have no doubt there will be heated letters in opposition, but this is one voter who values your stand.
Locust GroveLame arguments
Whoever it was who pirated The Free Lance-Star's editorial page recently,
Surely, its stilted prose wouldn't have passed editorial review under normal circumstances. Not only did it need punching up, it should have been punched out. Its arguments were lame, its expressed opposition to Romney's candidacy sophomoric and canned.
Please issue an apology to your loyal readers. who had expected an endorsement far different--and coherent.
Ben R. Blankenship Jr.
StaffordA relationship ended
As a youngster in the 1960s, I delivered newspapers in Fredericksburg's Hanover Street corridor. My loyalty to The Free Lance-Star began.