I was delighted to see that Ann Burruss has followed my editorial views so closely (“IndBox: Just Another Empty Suit,” Oct. 22), and I happily accept her superlative assessment of my writing skill. However, her writing is not nearly as good, and neither are her facts: It is an open secret that Sen. Mary Landrieu voted against oil shale development at the express request of Sen. Ken Salazar (D-Colo.), who has resisted this line of exploration in a spineless concession to environmental extremists. Landrieu’s vote is indefensible, considering the nation’s energy demands and exorbitant gas prices that have only recently begun to lower. Fact: Oil shale development is commercially viable and offers tremendous hope for new oil and gas production — not to mention the explosion of jobs that would follow. It would have been nice if Landrieu had consulted with the voters of Louisiana before blowing a kiss to her Democratic colleague.
Despite her weak assertion that other facts I’ve raised about Landrieu’s record are “misrepresentations,” Burruss forgets to mention which facts those are. Maybe she got distracted while feverishly trying to justify Landrieu’s disregard for the people she is supposed to be representing.
Most amusing, though, is Burruss’ suggestion that because I work in the communications field, I forfeit the right to an opinion. The boogeyman is here! It is truly a nefarious plot that would allow people who have jobs and careers to express themselves — and in more than one newspaper. No, I am not on the Kennedy payroll. But hey, that’s an idea.