Fraud makes us doubt the process

Pride is sin. Commentators Mark Landau and Aaron Kay (Chattanooga Times editorial page, page B6, Dec. 10), instead of examining reasonable election doubts, smirk at doubters' motives.

Two can play motive games ("Bulverism" — C. S. Lewis). Proud liberals like to boss people around; greedy liberals covet our tax dollars; fornicating liberals want subsides for side effects of their hobbies; so they think Biden won. (Try monogamy; God made Adam and Eve.)

Motives matter. So do facts.

I think Mr. Biden won, alas, but election doubts deserve respect. I want to hear, "I'd rather we lose an election than steal one." Do we hear this from Landau and Kay, Biden, [Pam] Sohn, Clay Bennett and their GOP counterparts?

I want to hear, "We're making sure that small glitch doesn't happen anywhere else and doesn't happen again." Do we hear about prosecution over the dead man who voted in Northwest Georgia? That's election fraud. People who blow off errors rather than fix them give us cause to doubt the process. Three Georgia counties goofed for Biden. Two-vote discrepancy in the Avondale precinct. Well?

Andrew Lohr


Whose progress for Ossoff, Warnock?

The yard signs in Georgia for Democrats Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock declare, "Progress Not Gridlock."

"Progress" became a byword in American politics about a century ago, thanks in part to President Woodrow Wilson, who urged that in view of the great changes of the late 19th century (growth of industry and cities, especially), the U.S. government ought not to be overly constrained by an 18th-century Constitution. The challenges were simply too great to be bound by the founders' intent and their original language; progress demanded otherwise, and so progressives of both major parties have played fast and loose since then with the boundaries established by the Constitution and its vision of limited government.

Progress is, of course, a matter of opinion and preference; people of goodwill often disagree whether a plan is truly a step forward. Thus, unless constrained by a constitution, those in power will often not hesitate to enact their version of "progress." Every indication is that Ossoff and Warnock have no sense of the limits established by the Constitution, instead asking voters to empower them to do whatever's necessary to implement the Democrats' vision for America, regardless of the Constitution.

No thanks.

Gary Lindley

Lookout Mountain, Georgia


Georgians oppose Warnock due to race?

Nov. 5, 2008. Kids get out of cars with "America, love it or leave it" bumper stickers, enter my classroom in a local Christian school and declare they are moving to Canada. I offer a qualified "yes" to a student who asks if I think Obama will be a good president. She looks as crestfallen as if I had just denied the resurrection of Christ. Later, in discussion with a white, male, Christian friend, I dare to argue that not all of Obama's ideas are straight from hell. He asks, "Do you believe Obama's a Christian?" I answer, "Yes." He stonefacedly ends the conversation.

I wondered then how much of this was opposition to liberalism, how much was fear engendered by Obama's foreign-sounding name or, heaven forbid, the color of his skin. When Obama left office alive, I secretly breathed a prayer of thanks.

All the hatred spewed against Raphael Warnock, a pastor and brother in Christ, but unforgivably more liberal than me, and Black, makes me ask the same questions: Is it his supposed liberalism or the color of his skin that is so frightening?

I pray for his election, reputation and safety.

Herbert K. Lea

Chickamauga, Georgia