The Editorial “New Era: Voice for Republicanism” goes on to say “New Era editorials will speak out forcefully issues, large and small, and offer solutions that reflect the spirit of Republicanism.”

WATCHDOG:  Whose “Republicanism?” Dwight D. Eisenhower’s or George W. Bush’s?

Indeed, are local issues subject to such interpretations, in which case are we to assume that the New Era vigorously opposed the largely tax payer funded and guaranteed Convention Center Project despite its publisher’s sponsorship of the project? We don’t recall that.

It is heartening to be advised that the New Era supports “pro-life”, “right to bear arms’, “freedom of speech,” “freedom of religion,” and is “for the Bill of Rights as written.” But aren’t these nuanced issues?  Where will the New Era stand on stem cell research? Does the New Era support assault rifles and armor piercing bullets?

Are Democrats really against free speech and freedom of religion? Do Democrats have another version of the  Bill of Rights? Strikes us that liberals are trying to restore the Fourth Amendment concerning search and seizure. Yes, there are more than two amendments!

The Watchdog was a Republican for most of his life.  Eight years ago he registered Democrat.  He misses the Party of Eisenhower, Nixon (far more progressive than most realize), and George H. W. Bush. (Notice someone missing?) If the New Era doesn’t speak to all of the Republicans who have been forced to become independent or Democrats, their editorials will be more canned rants than opinion pieces.  And the Watchdog won’t be able to come home.

Updated: June 29, 2009 — 2:18 pm