THE BURLISON LETTER:
Below is a letter that I wrote and sent to Candidate Bill Burlison. This letter was also published in the Daily Statesman. Following the text of this letter is a photo of his response. Below that is a response from Russell Oliver, who was running for county prosecutor at the time.
Mr. Burlison;
First of all, I would like to say that I hold you in high respect for the achievements you have made in your life. It is to my understanding that you are a very educated man with seven academic degrees. Education is a valued thing in this day and age. My own father holds two doctorates as well as several other degrees. One such degree is in history. My father passed on his love of history and patriotism to all of his children. My own younger brother is presently running for state representative in the 105th district.
That being said, while I am duly impressed with your academic achievements, I am not impressed with what appears to be an obvious opinion on your part that the voting public is in general ignorant. Let me explain.
You stated in your letter that the RUST papers afford your opponent with free advertising. I happen to know for a fact that your opponent spends a great deal of his own money on advertising with the RUST newspapers. Again, this is not speculation; this is a fact that can be verified. And so, your statement at best, is very misleading. This sort of thing is disturbing in those who are, or who aspire to be, our public officials.
You also state in your letter that you are opposed to abortion but you don’t say why. Everybody that I know who is opposed to abortion will tell you that it is because they believe it is murder. Then you go on to say that while you are opposed to abortion, or as the rest of us pro-lifers call it, murder, that you agree with the Supreme Court decision that women should be allowed to abort their children. This is the political double talk that we Americans are sick and tired of. What you stated in your letter is the equivalent of stating that you believe the act of murdering someone is wrong but we should let the murderer decide if, who, and when he will kill. How hypocritical, especially from someone who seems to take pride in their status as a Baptist Sunday school teacher. The Bible has a lot to say about the sanctity of life at conception.
You go on to discuss agendas that can only be dealt with on a federal level, such as deficit spending and requiring a Constitutional Amendment that will require a balanced federal budget. Tell me, Mr. Burlison, how, if elected as a Missouri state representative, you are going to work on the state level to change things that can only be changed on the federal level. It sounds good to an ignorant voting public, Mr. Burlison. Fortunately, the good people of our district are not so ignorant.
Incidentally, you also stated that when you left congress (1980, I believe) the national debt had accumulated to $800 Billion in a 200 year time span. That would mean that the national debt would have started to accumulate in 1780. It may interest you to know that in 1837 our national debt was completely paid off during the Jackson administration. If you are going to state historical facts and be held credible you will have to be a bit more accurate than that. Yes, we do have a huge national debt and something needs to be done about it, but I fail to see how that duty falls upon the shoulders of a state representative.
I would also like to know how our federal foreign policy can be changed on the state level. You stated that we should have learned our lesson from the Korean, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan wars, that we cannot police the world. I agree that all of these wars were and are controversial in some aspects. I also know that when another country is in jeopardy of losing their freedoms we are one step closer to losing our own. That is why our country traditionally goes to the aid of countries that need it.
What exactly is your stance on what you call the “Strict Separation of Church and State?” You say in your letter that this is in our Bill of Rights but it is not. The First Amendment reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The founding fathers did not intend to keep the church out of the state, (they had organized prayer meetings between sessions, opened many sessions in audible prayer, and also appointed chaplains). Their intent was to prohibit the government from overseeing and governing religious activities and organizations.
You mention the separation but you do not give your political views on it.
What was your motive to challenging your opponent, Mr. Wright, to a footrace? Do you think that voters will be swayed to vote for the winner? I would be disappointed in Mr. Wright if he were to accept your irrelevant challenge and I am even more disappointed in you for suggesting such an idea.
Mr. Burlison, again I commend you on your personal achievements in life but I can not vote for you or support your candidacy in any way.