Vague argument provides no good reasons to support Romney


by Dylan Murphy

To the Editor:


Though the point is moot by now, I write to address the rather shocking lack of specifics in the opinion piece endorsing Mitt Romney for the Presidential election.

The writer noted there were sharp differences between the two candidates but refused to discuss them because “these issues so complex and sophisticated….” In the same paragraph, he stated that young people “look at cursory examinations of issues…”

This is unfair to many people in our school, who care deeply about politics and their country. An editorial piece is precisely the place to provide a thorough examination of the issues to young people who do care enough to want to be informed.

It would have been a better service to your readers to provide at least some examples of the sharply different policies espoused by the two candidates.

Without those specifics, the writer conveyed only personal impressions that gave little clue to the policies each candidate would pursue in office.

Saying that one candidate “stands for a strong America,” for example, doesn’t tell us very much when the writer fails to explain what policies will be implemented or how they would affect us.

Your other writer, Dennis Duffy, rose to this challenge. He provided specific examples of President Obama’s accomplishments throughout his term. He also pointed out one of the major benefits of his presidency to the seniors; namely, the reduction of student loan interest rates.

His opinion piece was therefore more helpful and more informative to more students in the school.