This KC Star Column is the Pitts

In today's Kansas City Star, in the "As I See It" column, Daryl Pitts of Lenexa, Kansas gives his take on the election. The tone of the piece is sarcastic and to me it came off as typical Democrat patronism.

He begins by defining himself as a liberal Democrat who, in the midst of his self-pity over the election loss, decides that the outcome was, after all, "really a sweet deal for me." He decides to "jump on the bandwagon" because "Dubya and his band of like-thinkers" are looking out for him.

"Forty-six-year-old, upper-middle-class, straight, Christian, white guys have it made," he writes."This is such a good deal for me I am kicking myself for not going to the dark side sooner. No more affirmative action? Sure, why not?"

Okay, let's pause here. Affirmative action is racial profiling; think about it. You know how liberals yell about racial profiling. So racial profiling is all right as long as it works FOR liberal programs but if it's needed to protect American citizens from terrorist attacks, it's not all right. Pitts says, in sarcasm but actually expressing what liberals really believe: "Even if there is a little favoritism in our culture, I'm fine with it as long as I'm the one who comes out of top." (That's a perfect expression of the way liberal Democrats act -- for example, recounting elections until they win.) Well, I say both are wrong, according to the Declaration of Independence. It says all are equal.

Then Pitts writes,"No one in my family is even in the military, much less at risk in Iraq, or wherever the next invasion will occur. No worries for me here, just keep the killing out of the USA. There are plenty of other places that need to be Halliburtonized -- I mean democratized."

Well, Pitts, I DO have family in the military, some in Iraq. It's terribly worrisome, especially since our grandson will most probably go to Iraq right after his graduation from West Point. Our son-in-law has been there and a cousin is there now. We pray a lot.

I believe that President Bush is right. Ridding the world of terrorists while attempting to establish democracy in the Middle East makes future generations safer. Also, Kerry had no war plan. Since he was instrumental in dishonorably ending the Viet Nam war and leaving thousands to suffer at the hands of the North Vietnamese, he’s not trustworthy.

As for Halliburton -- why didn't liberal Democrats object to sending Halliburton to the Middle East during the Clinton administration? That experience made them the only company with the knowledge, experience and expertise to do the job now. And that's why they got the job.

"My wife and I have excellent jobs with generous benefits, so bring on the tax cuts and forget medical care for all." My husband and I are retired. Social security is important to us. The last tax cut helped but medical costs are a strain. However, we have seen socialized medicine in England, Sweden and Germany. It may benefit us in the short run, but it will punish our grandchildren in the long run, so we oppose nationalized health. Pitts implies that we're selfish because we voted for President Bush. I don't think so -- we voted not for things that would benefit us personally but for what is best for the country. That, after all, is the only valid way to vote to keep a republic/democratic form of government healthy.

"My parents have built a healthy nest egg, so I say 'Just say no' to inheritance taxes. I like to think of it as family welfare instead of government welfare, which, unlike government welfare, does not create slothfulness." Our parents didn't believe in leaving us money; they wanted us to make our own lives. So this issue isn't one that concerns me except that the tax is unreasonable, unfair and double taxation. I'm also not sure that government welfare creates slothfulness but I am sure that it creates painfully high taxes. That's never bothered Democrats, though. They know how to use the loopholes, like Kerry.

President Bush's administration has done a lot to help low income families own their own homes. Our middle-aged son is severely retarded and autistic. His disability income is very low but thanks to a Republican housing program, he recently bought an affordable, comfortable house on a half acre of land. The American Dream is his.

"My youngest daughter will graduate from one of those godforsaken, prayer-inhibited public schools here in the Spring," he writes,"so I don't give a rip if every child is left behind after the one I love graduates."
Never mind that liberal Democrat Sen. Ted Kennedy co-authored the No Child Left Behind Act and supports it. Our grandchildren go to a public school. They say the Lord’s Prayer and pledge allegiance to the flag, including the phrase “Under God,” every morning because parents insisted. The Constitutional separation of church and state was meant to operate as a one-way street – the state could not set up a church (like the Church of England) and require citizens to subscribe.

Pitts' patronizing snideness continues, "I hope Bush will be able to appoint enough Supreme Court justices to make us a Christian nation again. You know, freedom to worship in the Christian church of your choice." I don't know where he grew up but where I did, in Tennessee, there were Jewish temples and Greek Orthodox and Catholic churches and now that there are Muslims who have made America their home, there are Mosques. That's the America that President Bush encourages, not the godless world of the liberal Democrat, which we've seen enough of in the past 8 years.

Pitt ends his column with this paragraph: "Now some of you liberal Demon-crats and wish-washy flipfloppers might say I have become selfish. To you I say, come on over to the winning team!" That little witticism reminds me of a saying back home:"Tryin' to but can't." It's obvious that Democrats care only about winning. Voting in the interest of the future of the country to the detriment of one's own interests is a concept that seems foreign to the likes of Mr. Pitts. But it is the only way to keep the system working for the good of all.

Look at the way Democrats operate: The Clinton administration believed that if you tell a lie often enough, everyone will believe it. Democrats have been doing that ever since. They are patronizing toward their opposition – Pitts cutesy little sarcastic column is a good example of that. He will call my response "dumb" if he sees it, without knowing my IQ or the level of my education. To him I say, saying doesn't make it so.

Democrats been stealing elections from Texas in 1948 to Chicago in 1960. Now they want to count votes until they win. They are so proficient at cheating that they are quick to accuse Republicans of it. In 2004 the only two election officers who have been indicted for fraud are Democrats, and the only recount election they’ve “won,” they did so with “found” votes.

My husband and I have painful memories of campaign headquarters we alone financed being destroyed. We rebuilt. We have lost elections -- some pretty close ones -- but until the example was set for us in 2000 it never occurred to us to challenge the vote. They say the thief is the first to accuse others of stealing and the liar is the one who quickly assumes others are lying.

If JPitt thought he was changing to the selfish side, he doesn't understand Republican conservatives. But that's pretty clear, isn't it? His column is, indeed, the Pitts.