‘Tea Party’ & ‘conservative’ not always the same thing
While I generally agree with David Post’s articles on economic matters and appreciate his ability to simplify complex tax and financial issues so the average person can better understand them, I disagree with a couple of assumptions that he recently made (“My Turn: Voting Matters, Monday).
Specifically, not everyone who subscribes to the Tea Party philosophy of smaller, less intrusive and financially responsible government supports the eccentric fringe who fail to recognize that conservatism (and liberalism for that matter) is of no value if you alienate those whose cooperation you need to achieve progress.
I don’t know enough about the intricacies of local politics to know who the “Tea Partiers” are, but I’m thankful that there is a nationwide movement that recognizes that the road America is on — where “inclusion and tolerance” exist only if you voice the politically correct opinion and where democracy is shunned in favor of socialism — is not going to get our country where we need to be a generation from now. (Jack Burke was absolutely right in his May 7 letter to the Post, “Freedom of speech trumps disgust.”)
David stated “New voting laws scheduled to take effect in 2016 are designed to restrict voting rights.” That fortunately is his opinion and not fact. Here again, voting law changes have been maligned by the media that refers to them as “voting rights laws.” A more accurate description would be “election integrity laws” that insure people who vote are who they say they are, and help assure the integrity of the electoral process.
— Tim Deal
Salisbury