Letters to the Editor
haut
Published Letters: 28
-
Nah!
[Read the article: Will Obama's debate stumble hurt him?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So far, Hillary's attacks have only helped Obama. And, now for the latest:
'Vast right-wing conspiracy' leader's paper backs Clinton--here's the link:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080420/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_endorsement
Yeah, Scaife is now backing Hillary, as if you didn't know she was a Republican ho all along. Pertinent comments from the article:
Clinton met with the Tribune-Review's editorial board, including Scaife, last month. Afterward, Scaife wrote an editorial titled "Hillary, Reassessed," declaring how impressed he had been by the former first lady.
"Her meeting and her remarks during it changed my mind about her," Scaife wrote.
-
No laughing matter
[Read the article: The haunting of the Democrats]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]@LeCastor
And some people think Obama actually represents change...
Well, they're good for a chuckle."
There will certainly be no chuckling if Kyl-Liberman, rate-freezing Clinton gets the nomination.
-
no laughing matter
[Read the article: The haunting of the Democrats]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I meant, of course, Kyl-Lieberman.
And, for some more good news:
'Vast right-wing conspiracy' leader's paper backs Clinton--here's the link:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080420/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_endorsement
Yeah, Scaife is now backing Hillary, as if you didn't know she was a Republican ho all along. Pertinent comments from the article:
Clinton met with the Tribune-Review's editorial board, including Scaife, last month. Afterward, Scaife wrote an editorial titled "Hillary, Reassessed," declaring how impressed he had been by the former first lady.
"Her meeting and her remarks during it changed my mind about her," Scaife wrote.
-
This is interesting, Part I
[Read the article: The haunting of the Democrats]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The 2008 Election Will Be Stolen
By David Swanson
The Supreme Court stopped a recount in Florida in 2000 that would have made Al Gore president. This is not speculation. The recount was later done.
Numerous elections were stolen in 2002, in Colorado, New Hampshire, Minnesota, and elsewhere, including Senate, Governor, and House races in Georgia that were practically openly swiped by Diebold's elections unit president flying in at the last minute and altering the election machines. The theft of Don Siegelman's 2002 election as governor of Alabama was almost as transparent. One county reported a set of results from electronic machines that made Siegelman governor, then recalculated and reported a different set of results. The new results were statistically impossible, and the pair of reports strongly suggested exactly how the machines were rigged, first mistakenly and later as intended.
John Kerry and John Edwards won the presidential election in 2004. The evidence of specific fraud in Ohio and elsewhere is overwhelming, but so is the evidence of the exit polls. The unadjusted exit polls show Kerry and Edwards winning. When the results are "adjusted" to conform to the official results, we are asked to believe that Bush and Cheney increased their big city voters from 2.3 million in 2000 to 5.4 million in 2004, a 153 percent increase. While support for Cheney-Bush dropped off in rural areas, small towns, medium sized cities, etc., it skyrocketed in the Democratic strongholds of big cities. Let me be clear: that's the official story of what happened, not the wild conspiracy theory of ordinary people who allow themselves to be influenced by facts, logic, or memory of actual events.
Election fraud was not limited to Ohio or to the presidential race in 2004, but was widespread and systematic. This was also true in 2006. In many cases, Democratic turnout overwhelmed Republican fraud in 2006, and the Democrats picked up 30 new seats. But those victories were by larger margins than people believe. In other races, Republican fraud won out, and was immediately hushed up. Read the evidence in "Loser Take All," and then think about how the current Congress would have been different with 40 or 50 new Democrats rather than 30. The 2006 elections saw the most widespread and sophisticated election fraud our country has yet seen, combined with the greatest public confidence since 2000 that elections were honest and verifiable. That combination does not bode well for 2008.
The views of Senator John McCain are so far from those of most Americans, that Miller rightly refers to the Republicans as a fringe party. But that fringe party is perfecting election theft. The only way to prevent John McCain from being the next president would be to hand him such a whopping defeat that he could not plausibly claim to have honestly won. Sadly, Senator Obama (the Democratic nominee, barring an antidemocratic coup by super delegates) appears intent on avoiding a landslide at all costs and aiming, rather, for a tight victory of 1 or 2 percent. (And Senator Clinton appears intent on losing the election should she be miraculously nominated.)
_______