Ehrlich

I can hear 'em now. "He's a good guy"; "He's a family man"; "He'll govern like a moderate"; "It will be so good for the country"; "He's post-partisan. " That the election of a mixed-race candidate for president sent positive messages about America around the world is without question; that the election occurred less than 50 years after the end of Jim Crow was stunning - and spoke volumes about how far we have progressed on race and politics. Yet, the entire post-partisan narrative was quite a stretch (and silly to boot)

I can't wait for my next Sunday newspaper to see a negative response to Robert L. Ehrlich Jr.'s recent column ("Democrats riding high, but beware a midterm crash," March 10). As I stated in a previous e-mail, like clockwork every Sunday there's a response countering Mr. Ehrlich's previous column. Note that these letters never run in Monday's paper when there's a smaller readership. I guess the philosophy at The Sun is something to the effect of let's give Mr. Ehrlich exposure and an opportunity to give him some publicity but by golly, let's sock it to him with a consistent negative reply.

My columnist and television pundit gigs have me thinking a great deal about the relative positions of the two parties heading into the midterm election cycle. For starters, the Democrats are ahead. Last November's elections gave the president a surprisingly strong victory and provided him with a comfortable margin in the U.S. Senate. These results have the usual suspects (Hollywood, academia, mainstream media) all aflutter with thoughts of an emergent progressive era in America. The picture is decidedly less rosy on the other side of the aisle.

I may be influenced by a recent performance of "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof," but the first word that came to mind after reading Robert Ehrlich's recent column was "mendacity" ("Disability insurance entitlement explodes under Obama," March 3). His depiction of the Obama administration's goals and the current economic and policy environment is long on hyperbole, but noticeably short on facts. Contrary to his assertion, numbers can lie. Mr. Ehrlich begins his column with the oft-repeated canard that a majority of Americans are "on some form of public assistance" and, based on this dubious statistic, asserts that President Barack Obama wants to transform the U.S. into a European-style welfare state.

As someone who has made a career advocating on behalf of those that depend on Social Security Disability and Supplemental Security Income benefits, I was disheartened to read Robert L. Ehrlich Jr.'s column, "Disability insurance entitlement explodes under Obama" (March 3). The percentage increase in people on Social Security disability in recent years was expected, due to the aging Baby Boomers, half of whom are now reaching "high disability years. " Additionally, there has been an increase of women in the workforce in recent decades, women who are now eligible to draw on their own earnings record when they become disabled.

Former Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. has been given the privilege of being one of the only right-leaning voices on the opinion pages of our left-leaning newspaper. While I am a left-leaning kind of guy, I am also an open-minded reader and enjoy hearing opinions that differ from my own on current events and political issues. What offends me about Mr. Ehrlich's column, however, is that it seems to follow the format of Fox News and attack journalism. Rarely do I read his column and find insights or suggestions for making things better.

Those of you paying attention have noticed that the Obama administration is actually doing what it promised: transforming America into a gigantic welfare state. And there are plenty of takers willing to cash in on it and "get mine. " Numbers don't lie. Forty percent of the population was on some form of public assistance when the president took office; today, that number stands at 55 percent. And fraud is rampant. "Exhibit A" is the Social Security Disability Insurance program (SSDI)

In his column ("Campus liberals run amok," Feb. 24), Robert L. Ehrlich Jr., a former congressman, stated the following: "Politically correct speech codes barring 'offensive expression' continue unabated on many campuses. Such policies chill expression (protected by the First Amendment) that might be found offensive - to any and all. " Without commenting on the validity of his "run amok" argument, I should like to point out that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Bob Ehrlich devoted roughly one-third of an entire op-ed page in Sunday's Sun to a surprisingly weak and inarticulate diatribe about how liberal colleges and universities are often force-feeding "your kids" ludicrous, politically correct junk ("As kids head to college, beware liberal groupthink," Feb. 24). He only made direct reference to four universities. Vanderbilt, a private school, allegedly placed four Christian groups on provisional status for requiring members to adhere to religious tenets.

Politicians (including former politicians) like to be right more than most people. You see, in politics, public officials live or die by their (very) public opinions concerning the issues of the day. It is with this somber thought in mind that I reissue a sampling of previously published opinions - with timely updates For Your Information. Opinion: Prominent liberals will continue to market a new narrative that pushes public sector growth as the key to economic recovery. Update: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's Jan. 31 floor statement concerning the U.S. economy's negative growth in the last quarter of 2012: "Growth went down in the fourth quarter because of reduced government spending, and a reticence in the private sector as government fought over the fiscal cliff.