Thomas Finch – 6/21/05


This page was last updated on June 28, 2005.


Typical Republicans; Thomas Finch; Beaver County Times; June 21, 2005.

I enjoy it when folks like Mr. Finch write letters like this because we get to hear from people who believe they represent the Democrat party and what it stands for.  I could write all day and not do the damage to Democrats that people like Mr. Finch do in less than 300 words.

My letter to which Mr. Finch refers was entitled “Seeing himself more clearly.”  A rebuttal letter I sent to the Times is shown at the end of this critique.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.


“June 13th must have been ‘Republican Propaganda Day’ at The Times.  It was open season on those irresponsible, criminal-loving, anti-gun/hunting, Democrats in the letters to the editor section.”

[RWC] This is hysterical.  Two letters comprise “Republican Propaganda Day?”  What is it on those days when we read five or more anti-Bush and/or Republican letters?

Exactly what “Republican propaganda” did I spread?  The beliefs I listed I specifically noted were my personal conservative positions.  I didn’t refer to them as Republican beliefs or assign them to Republicans in general.  Indeed, I wrote, “today’s elected Republicans tend to be barely to the right of JFK-era Democrats.”

Finally, how could it have been “open season on those irresponsible, criminal-loving, anti-gun/hunting, Democrats” when I didn’t attack Democrats or their beliefs even once in my letter?  In fact, I defended rank-and-file Democrats in my December letter entitled “Leaders don’t reflect values.”

“First, I had to read Robin Cox’s sarcastic tripe, followed by Lisa Guerrera spewing verbatim propaganda right out of Bush’s campaign playbook, unfavorably characterizing Democrats.  (Later, I see a letter from Peter Homitz praising this drivel as ‘refreshing whimsical satire.’  It gags me.)”

[RWC] He “had to read” my letter?  Who held a gun to Mr. Finch’s head and made him read it?  Maybe he meant it was a “must read” letter. <g>  Beyond that, where in my letter did I “unfavorably characterize Democrats?”  As I noted above, I didn’t attack Democrats or their beliefs.

Since Ms. Guerrera’s letter was simply a mirror image of Vince Avedon’s, how can Mr. Finch complain without being hypocritical?  After all, he referred to Mr. Avedon’s letter as “outstanding.”

“Cox refers to ‘factual errors’ in Vince Avedon’s outstanding letter, but makes no corrections.  Like a typical Republican, he likes to sling mud with no facts to back it up.”

[RWC] Writing there were factual errors is mudslinging?  You’d think I called Mr. Avedon a liar without proof, which I didn’t do.  There were a few reasons I didn’t perform a point-by-point dissection of Mr. Avedon’s letter.

First, I didn’t correct Mr. Avedon’s factual errors because I thought they would be obvious to readers.

Second, letters are space limited (max of 300 words) and I couldn’t both make my points and correct Mr. Avedon’s “facts” within 300 words.

Third, it was a style thing.  My letter drafts started out by refuting some of Mr. Avedon’s points, but I then decided to take the humorous approach.  Given Mr. Finch’s reaction, I made the correct choice.

“Some of Mr. Avedon’s points were indisputable facts, if you look beyond parroting Bush’s lock-step propaganda.  Let’s see.  No Iraq exit strategy and cutting VA benefits and closing bases.  Can anyone deny that is not true?”

[RWC] You’ll note I corrected Mr. Avedon’s “indisputable facts” in the letter to the editor shown at the end of this critique.  Mr. Finch should reread Mr. Avedon’s letter.  Mr. Avedon never mentioned “closing bases.”  I believe Mr. Finch needs a skilled editor.

“Here is a shocking fact.  Civil rights, personal responsibility and a strong national defense were not invented by or exclusively championed by, Republicans.  There are lots of Democrats who hunt, own guns, believe in jailing criminals and fight and die in Bush’s misguided posturing in Iraq.”

[RWC] I never wrote, “Civil rights, personal responsibility and a strong national defense” were exclusively Republican positions.  I wrote they were my beliefs.

Before he gets too cranked up, though, Mr. Finch should take a look at the actions of Democrat leadership on these issues.  Elected  - but not all – Democrats filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act and believe it’s OK to discriminate on the basis of race, sex, et cetera as long as you call it affirmative action or diversity.  Elected Democrats constantly want to throw our hard-earned paychecks at people who refuse to take responsibility for their decisions.  Elected Democrats are the ones undermining national security by publicly berating our military efforts on a daily basis.  You don’t take national security seriously when your comments lead on Al-Jazeera.

“The biggest mistake Democrats ever made was letting all the self-righteous, ‘moral’ Republicans distance themselves from Watergate.  America seems to have forgotten the exploits of Nixon with his evil gang of criminals and thugs.”

[RWC] Mr. Finch believes Democrats let “Republicans distance themselves from Watergate?”  Is he kidding?

Does he believe Republicans approved of Richard Nixon’s actions with respect to Watergate?  At the time I thought his attempted cover-up was incredibly wrong and stupid and I still do.

If Mr. Finch believes all Republicans are responsible for Nixon’s actions, does this mean all Democrats support the actions of the minority of Democrats who filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act and attempts to make lynching a federal crime?  Did all Democrats support Bill Clinton’s treatment of his intern in the Oval Office and his lying about it under oath?  Folks like Mr. Finch need to think before they attribute the actions of a few to an entire group.

“But that was before they discovered there was more profit and votes in ‘morality.’”

[RWC] Does Mr. Finch realize what he wrote?  Does he mean elected Democrats haven’t yet “discovered there [is] more profit and votes in ‘morality’” or that elected Democrats knew all along “there was more profit and votes in ‘morality?’”  Neither answer reflects well on elected Democrats.

I’ve always known you get further in life by being a moral person, regardless of your political beliefs.  Most of my friends are registered Democrats and I consider them to be at least as moral as I.

In fact, true conservative beliefs haven’t wavered over the decades.  The reason true conservative beliefs appear “extreme” to folks like Mr. Finch is that the Democrat platform has moved much further to the left than it was in the JFK era.  I could be wrong, but I can’t picture any of today’s elected Democrats staring down the USSR during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.  We also need to remember it was elected Democrats who pushed for coexistence with the USSR when President Reagan was working to dismantle it.

“Now, we’re stuck with a corrupt administration whose officials wrap themselves in the flag when anyone criticizes them and call their critics unpatriotic while they cater to the big-money that elected them - at the expense of the dwindling middle class who they conned into voting for them.”

[RWC] I’d like Mr. Finch to provide some examples to support any of the talking points in this sentence.  Didn’t Mr. Finch write above that I like “to sling mud with no facts to back it up?”  I guess Mr. Finch believes in “do as I say, not as I do.”

You have to give folks like Mr. Finch credit for guts.  Who else would court people who voted for Republicans by calling those voters stupid?

“Sarcasm aside, I’m inclined to accept Cox at his word as a ‘radical, right-wing, extremist, Neanderthal’ who’s a ‘bigoted, greedy, hateful, pollution-loving, hypocrite.’

“In other words, a typical Republican!”

[RWC] I’m insulted.  I’m far more conservative than “a typical Republican,” or at least the elected variety.


I sent the following rebuttal letter to the Times on June 21st.  As of June 28th it had not been published.

Indisputable facts?

Thomas Finch (“Typical Republicans,” June 21) chastised me for not correcting “indisputable facts” cited in Vince Avedon’s “outstanding letter.”

I didn’t correct Mr. Avedon’s factual errors because I thought they would be obvious to readers.

I’ll take Mr. Finch’s challenge, however, and correct the “indisputable.”

Regarding Mr. Avedon’s comment about “cutting VA benefits at home,” a review of the 2006 federal budget shows Department of Veterans Affairs spending increased approximately 51% under President Bush (five years) vs. approximately 27% under Bill Clinton (eight years).  Is it enough?  I don’t know.

Regarding an Iraq “exit strategy,” I believe the stated strategy is to win.  If by exit strategy Messrs. Avedon and Finch mean publishing a troop withdrawal schedule before we win, isn’t that a losing tactic?  Did Generals Washington, Grant, Eisenhower, and MacArthur publish troop withdrawal schedules before we won the Revolutionary and Civil Wars and World War II?

Regarding “Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him … [and] when Cheney was doing business with him,” the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute reports the only “arms” the U.S. sold to Saddam’s Iraq were civilian helicopters eventually “taken over by [the] Air Force.”  If we had armed Iraq during the Iran/Iraq War, would that have differed from FDR making Joseph Stalin an ally during World War II?  The “enemy of my enemy is my friend” strategy is always open to criticism.

I consider the remaining Avedon points to be his personal opinions and none represent my beliefs.  For example, I have no “hatred of AIDS victims and Hillary [Clinton?].”

I guess they weren’t “indisputable facts” after all.

One big difference between Mr. Finch’s letter and mine is, though I disagreed with his positions, I didn’t resort to name-calling.  Further, I defended rank-and-file Democrats in a December letter.


© 2004-2005 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.