While I never respond to disagreeable letters more than once, in this case I have to make an exception. I am referring to the May 3 letter written by Dr. Sobel. This particular letter was so evasive, insipid, and pathetic that I felt compelled to offer some comment.
I had previously listed 48 reasons for my gratitude to have Trump as my president. The overwhelming majority of the policies undertaken by his administration are those I personally approve of. My list was not meant to be polemical. I do not expect everyone to agree with them. I do not think appropriate attention and appreciation is paid to the magnificent accomplishments of his administration. I write the lists to keep sympathizers informed.
Out of nowhere comes Dr. Sobel. With a maniacal hatred of Trump, Sobel rages into attack mode. He insipidly tries to refute a mere three of the policies. He successfully refutes none. Yes! That is right! None! So, instead of focusing on the issues raised by the policies, he attacks the personalities of Trump, Dinesh D’Souza, and myself. Pathetic, impotent, ad hominem attacks.
Sobel might try to devalue my lists as a “numbers game,” but those accomplishments mean serious business to serious people. His insipid excuse was to mock the way I spend my time. Does he really want to know how I spend my time? I am still active in my profession, I manage several real estate properties, and I trade futures and options. When I have the time to write letters to this newspaper, it is usually once every two months.
On the other hand, if I am correct, Sobel is retired. I see his letters in virtually every edition. He is a prolific letter writer. Yet, all of a sudden, he does not have the time to spend refuting the policies. I think it would be more accurate to say that he doesn’t have the facts on his side so he prefers to evade discussing the policies.
Sobel pathetically repeats the same claims as those in his first letter. Trump is supposedly mentally unstable. First of all, in a previous letter, a local, licensed psychiatrist has already trashed Sobel’s assertions. Secondly, it is also up to Sobel to show how this so-called mental instability has affected how the policies were implemented. Did he give any examples? No!
He then repeats the same accusations he made against payday lenders. For those who do not know the issue, Richard Cordray, who headed the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau under Obama, tried to ruthlessly regulate pay day lenders out of business. The Trump administration wanted to roll back some of the regulations so that the businesses would survive. I agreed with the roll back. Sobel then feels the need to insult me by saying, “Only Dr. Roth could defend such a practice.”
Perhaps a refresher in reading comprehension would help him here. I explicitly agreed that some in the business were rapacious. Read it again. I also wrote that The Wall Street Journal supports the pay day lenders as an important service to a community underserved by banks and credit card companies. Read that again. So, I guess it turns out that “only Dr. Roth” actually has a few million Wall Street Journal subscribers who defend the pay day lenders as well. Many Republicans were on board with rolling back some of the regulations.
I am not done. Let me also list several names that also agree with me. Gwen Moore, Gregory Meeks, Mark Warner, Gary Peters, Debra Wasserman Schulz, and Alcee Hastings. Guess what political party they are affiliated with? What was that about “only Dr. Roth”? Only a hare-brained Sobel could support a policy that drives the poor into the arms of pawnshops and loan sharks as opposed to a regulated business.
Lastly, Sobel attacks Dinesh D’Souza. Again, he uses ad hominem attacks. You can hear D’Souza’s speeches on youtube.com where he describes his admiration for Trump. Does Sobel show any interest in viewing these? Of course not. Instead, he uses misdirection with the fact that D’Souza served a short-term prison sentence for a one-time campaign violation.
These violations happen all the time and are usually overlooked. But maybe, just maybe, it had something to do with D’Souza’s 2016 political movie documentary “Obama’s America.” Many felt the unflattering description of Obama was thought to be a motivation for political retribution. Either way, Sobel added no thoughtful criticism as to why D’Souza is impressed with Trump.
What we have here is an empty suit.
Dr. Wayne Roth