Before I Blogged

Before I started blogging, I would write letters for publication on the Kansas City Star opinion page. I was always intrigued by what letters the editors would print, print with edits or simply ignore. The Star's staff never tell you that a letter was rejected. Instead, they call and verify that you sent in a letter for publication before printing it. IF the plan to edit the content, that iremains unknown until seen in print.I have a few examples of letters I submitted. Some were printed, others were ignored, and one was changed and printed.

This one was published during the last year of the Bush administration. It drew fire from several Bush haters in subsequent letters over the next few days.

Over the past few weeks, I have followed with interest several opinion page exchanges between Bush-lovers and haters. Let me submit that the final assessment of the Bush presidency is 20 years away. George Bush has led this country with his national security, economic, and moral principals. Much like the Reagan national security and economic legacy, whether Bush’s principals are the right governing principals for today will only be known in the future. Principled leadership is risky. The intended outcome may not be immediate, so it draws fire from the shortsighted. President Bush’s leadership over the last 7 years has been tough for some. His principals do not meet their short term expectations, however the decisions were made with a long view. Short view people are understandably disappointed. Someday Bush will be given due credit for his leadership. Call me an idiot if I’m wrong, but please wait 20 years.

The following submission was not published due to length. I resubmitted a more consise version but it was not published.

I tire of Lee Judge [KC star staff editorial cartoonist] and other self-anointed liberal intellectuals berating conservatives simply because we support our current President. Their elitist attitude would require one to believe that our current situation can’t be any worse. That is a naively false belief. If democrats had won the white house the last 2 elections, we would be in much worse condition. Gas taxes increases along with tight supply would have raise pump prices much higher than we have seen to date. A madman would likely still rule Iraq, and Afghanistan would remain a safe harbor for Al Qaida. The economy could truly be in the midst of a long recession, the one that liberals want you to believe we are now in. The Supreme Court would have 2 additional liberal judges that would be legislating instead of interpreting. Yes, things could be much worse. To Bush’s credit, he has saved us from those perils however he may have only delayed the inevitable. Obama is more frightening than Gore or Kerry. Not much is known about him, but we do know that he wants to nationalize health care, consistently supports a far left agenda, and consorts with questionable characters. The press has given Obama a free pass on all positions and excused his campaign mistakes. Change can be good or bad. Obama’s change would be catastrophic for America.

With the 2 recent rejections, I became curious to see what would be published. The Star is a liberal publication, and there was some thought that only a very few conservative letter would be ran. So a couple weeks later this letter was submitted and again rejected.

Dear Elitist Democrats,

I know you think we conservatives are slow, but we do get it. Keeping your car tuned up and tires inflated does save gas. We also understand that drilling in ANWR now will not reduce prices at the pump tomorrow. Please stop beating us over the head with these Blinding Flashes of the Obvious. Here are a couple of flashes for you.

Obama’s "plan" to save as much oil as we would get from drilling in ANWR still doesn’t work. To be feasible, it requires that all cars currently on the road are in need of a tune up and tire inflation. It’s just not true, but a great example of just how shallow the man’s ideas are.

Drilling in ANWR 10 years ago when the proposal was first considered by congress would have increased current supply by 2-3%. That 2-3% would have made an incredible difference in world oil prices today. How long would you like to wait before we tap our own resources?

Conservatives say additional drilling is one component of an inclusive energy strategy. Those that oppose drilling, including your messiah, only illustrate a frightening short-sightedness.

Just prior to the election, this letter was published. It was my reply to a printed letter suggesting that Sarah Palin was an empty suit.

Karen Miller’s letter on 9/14 was humorous. She recommends we "Inform ourselves on the issues and candidates’ responses. Listen carefully and think before you fall head over heels for a relative unknown who can be dynamic when reading a speech at a pep rally." The humorous part is that she was talking about Sarah Palin. Karen, follow your own advice. You precisely described Obama’s experience and skill set. Thanks for the laugh.

Another rejection of a letter I submitted a week before the election.

Created by the liberal left, marketed by the Hollywood elite and the given a free pass by the major media, Obama has not received the same level of scrutiny as that given to the Sarah Palin. And now we learn that the LA Times is protecting Obama by withholding potentially damaging video of his anti-Semitic dinner conversation with a person who has links to the PLO. Considering the stakes, that is a treasonous act. One or two associations with shady characters could be coincidental, but Obama seems to be drawn to them, or they to him. Yet, like lemmings racing toward the cliff, we are on the verge of promoting this guy to the most powerful job in the world, all in the name of an unknown change. I am not prepared to accept a president protected and anointed by the major media. Obama is not what he seems to be. Think hard America, Obama is a dangerous man.

This was published after the election with the last sentence removed. That disturbed me. I thought the final sentance was an elegant an printable way of making a crude comment. Its removal changed the tone of the entire letter.

The people have spoken and Barrack has won the right to serve as president of the United States. While we are not comfortable with how his anointing was orchestrated by the major media, I truly believe that our great country and its conservative principals will survive. Ultimately, Obama’s legacy may be very similar to George W. Bush’s. Obama will accomplish a few of his priorities, but the most troubling change may be due to the Supreme Court appointments he will make. History will count Bush’s appointments as great choices; we can only hope that Obama will select solid Constitutionalists. Nothing in his record indicates he will. To those who voted for Obama only because of the warm, tingly feeling you felt when he spoke, shame on you. Your incontinence has consequences.

Especially full of Christmas spirit, this letter was rejected 2 days before Christmas

I regularly read the Letters section in the KC Star opinion page. Usually, the entertainment value is worth the subscription price. Recently my amusement has turned to concern. Many writers now believe that: Bush and Rumsfeld should be prosecuted for war crimes; if you don’t agree with the gay agenda, you must be a bigot; censorship is okay as long as only conservative voices are muted; tens of thousands of dollars should be given to families so they can pay off their personal debt; universal health care will solve problems that plague both businesses and individuals, as if the cost of health care evaporates once it is nationalized; and most humorous, you can increase taxes an businesses and they will just absorb the cost rather than pass it on. What alternate universe do these folks live in?

This was a sarcastic reply to a Bush bashing letter. Ron Platt had asked the question "Who would defend the record of George Bush?" The letter was published.

Ron Platt asks where are the people who approve of Bush? (Letters, 1/6/09). While I do not approve of everything the man has done there are things he has done well. As these actions mature, they will form the Bush legacy. So hold your public gathering and put me first on the agenda. Here is what I will say.

First, Bush’s policies have helped keep us safe since 9/11. Anyone that believes the terrorist’s plan was to hit us once and quit is simply being foolish. Dozens of credible attacks have been thwarted, thanks to the CIA, FBI and Bush policies.

Second, I will point to a fledgling democracy in Iraq. Bush understood that going to war against Islamic terrorists could only be a near term reaction. The only way to defeat the terrorists would be to offer something better. Imagine democracy spreading in the Middle East over the next 20 years. You need to think long term to see the potential far outweighs the cost.

So Ron, count me in. And while you are at it, open the microphone for others to explain exactly why President-elect Obama is qualified to be president. I look forward to their well thought out reasons for voting for him. By the way, what free lunch are you serving?

In my final submission to the Star, this letter was rejected.

I found it interesting that the Star devoted so many column inches to children’s comments on the inauguration. After all, President Obama was elected by those with a child’s understanding of how the world and government operate. The gullible, led by a manipulative media, have made Obama president despite his inexperience. Here’s to hoping that President Obama is the most successful one-term president in American history.

Now I blog. I am the only editor. Thank you for reading, and especially those who take the time to comment.