Hi 25° | Lo 17°

Letter: Progressive hypocrites

No surprise reading Monitor Editor Felice Belman’s “A blizzard of mail, all about Ayotte” (, April 24).

Blizzard? No, I would say a “snow job.” A couple of things struck me as I read the letters calling for Sen. Kelly Ayotte to immediately step down, calling her a “coward,” “lapdog,” “enabler of mass murders,” “disgusting,” “extremist” and so on.

My first surprise was the vitriol of progressives who see themselves as enlightened and constantly remind us about “tolerance,” “embracing diversity” and excoriate others for being “mean-spirited.” Yet these letters practiced the politics of personal destruction – progressives failing to practice what they preach.

Moreover, these are left-leaning partisans trying to create a groundswell – Astroturf if you will – by feigning “outrage” and “disappointment” as if they were Ayotte supporters. A cursory search of the internet reveals the all the anti-Ayotte letter-writers either donated to another Democrat candidate, are members of local progressive and Democratic groups or post on far-left-leaning websites.

Belman wrote: “In fact, for the most part, the far-flung letters we’ve published have been the ones in favor of Ayotte’s vote,” calling those “minority” viewpoints. Those supporting Ayotte were not a “minority” and were not “far flung.” They talked about “freedom,” “liberty” and following the spirit of the Constitution. Wow, how extreme!

Where is Joe Friday when you need him? If he was the publisher at the Monitor, he would set Belman straight, saying: “Just the facts, Ma’am!” But then again, to the Monitor leadership, the “facts” are subjective both on the editorial page and on the news pages.



Legacy Comments2

Yet another letter from the bard of Barnstead that turns reality on its head. First, Bunker mis-uses the term "Astro-Turf" to try to diminish the significance of the overwhelming number of letters received by the CM opposed to Ayotte's vote against gun show background checks. These letters Bunker considers "astro-turf" because the writers were not "Ayotte supporters". Not that very many of the writers actually claimed to be supporters, but what difference does accuracy make, when one is spinning a rhetorical argument? Bunker labels them all as "left-leaning partisans" And how does Bunker know this? Why, he did a "cursory search" of the internet, which revealed to him that "all" of the anti-Ayotte letters were Democrats, or worse, post on "far-left leaning websites". Meanwhile, the minority of letters the CM received that supported Ayotte, coming mostly from out-of-state, are not really a "minority", according to Bunker, and not really "far-flung". Why not? Just because Bunker says so. And also because those letters "talked about 'freedom', liberty' and following the spirit of the Constitution." The actual evidence Bunker provides to support his opinions is shaky at best. Sensing this, he tries rhetorically to turn the facts on the numbers upside down, and finally concludes with an appeal to the flag: only those who talk about his versions of "freedom", "liberty" and the Constitution are, for want of a better term, the "real Americans".

So in your opinion, Bills letter is devoid of facts and poorly written? That will get your comment deleted. But then again, Bill is not friends of the editor, or, a former publishers relative. So, you are probably safe.

Post a Comment

You must be registered to comment on stories. Click here to register.