Letters to the Editor
casual_observer
Published Letters: 1359 Editor's Choice: 1
-
yellowdog @ filibuster
[Read the article: Are Democrats planning still worse FISA capitulations?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Will someone please explain to me why (other than their usual spinelessness) the Senate dems are not FORCING the repugs to carry out their threat to filibuster?
I have wondered the same thing. Especially on this bill. The democrats could make hay with the concept that republicans were blocking the senate from giving proper breaks to our troops.
I can offer two reasons why Reid won't do it, fwiw. First, there are other democratic amendments they want to get to (Reid-Levin is one)--and a true filibuster would halt those in their tracks. Second, forcing filibuster would represent an "escalation" in warfare in the senate, which might make it even more difficult to get anything passed.
This latter thing, if true, is the frustrating part.
-
Limitless Capitulation
[Read the article: Are Democrats planning still worse FISA capitulations?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]jkalos
I used to think that until I have seen how the Democratic congress is acting. Their actions have convinced me that Nader was in fact right about their being just one party with two components shadowboxing to distract us.
kdawg
What alternative do we have? Would you prefer ATT to fund our candidates and leave us apart from the whole mess?
pmorlan
If the Dems. should vote to provide retroactive immunity to the telecoms I will have no choice but to change my voter affiliation to Independent. I could not in good conscience remain a Democrat.
Netroots express rage, frustration, amazement, puzzlement regarding democratic behavior in congress. We ask how the democrats can show the same weakness needlessly, time and time again. But the netroots may be showing the same "groundhog day" behavior. They (we) have resolved pretty much that the solution to democratic weakness must be "more democrats in '08".
Looking forward, what happens if the probable indeed happens (democratic president and congress) but we continue the same lack of progress in civil liberties and foreign policy. What if we can't get habeas back. What happens if the current wrongs with FISA are not addressed. What happens if torture becomes SOP for american intelligence and military. What happens if corporate rule remains unabated and unchecked. What happens if the vote remains unsecure and open to endless distrust by the people. What happens if corruption maintains.
Will the netroots continue the mantra that we simply need just a few more democrats and then the problems will be solved.
When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
-
dclaw
[Read the article: Are Democrats planning still worse FISA capitulations?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"My behavior was completely craven, but I assure you I will magically grow a spine sometime in the future."
Like trying to find the tipping-point on a wet noodle. Just not gonna happen.
-
Ahmadinejad @ ground zero
[Read the article: Are Democrats planning still worse FISA capitulations?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Of course you let him visit. and if you're smart, you ask any of the 9/11 families to guide him, if they wish. and you invite any other leaders to join in, if they wish.
It's a no-brainer, and a great opportunity.
but instead, they play it the worst possible way they can. These guys are totally--totally--totally inept in foreign policy and statecraft.
And Hillary is right there with them. Let's see what the other candidates say. Let's see if any of them have a clue. This is a very interesting little test for them.
-
arne @ personality disorder
[Read the article: Are Democrats planning still worse FISA capitulations?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]On further thought, it is ineptness, but this is a symptom, rather than cause. It is actually completely consistent behavior on the President's part, as laid out in GG's latest book.
Which makes Hillary's identical response all the more cause for concern.
One thing that occurs to me that is not touched on in GG's book, or in the definitions of facism I've read, is the greater importance, reliance on, and rigidity of SYMBOLS in the growh of despotic, totalitarian systems.
But I believe such is the case. The amendments to make flag-burning illegal, for example or the sillyness regarding english as official national language are attempts to enshrine and elevate certain symbols equating to ever greater authority and insitence on conformity and compliance. In short--the more ideological a regieme, the greater the reliance on and elevation of symbols.
Ahmadinejad's jesture was symbolic, but it opened a huge portal for real diplomacy and real communication. Bush's refusal is equally symbolic, in slamming that portal shut. In Bush's view, an american president cannot, must not, be seen to engage/interact with evil (Ahmadinejad)--aside from conflict with it.
The neocons around Bush have their own reasons. They may not have identical evangelical motivations, but they clearly must know that any semblance of raproachment, even symbolic, harms their goal of armed conflict with Iran.
-
Pedinska
[Read the article: Are Democrats planning still worse FISA capitulations?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"The symbols seem to me to be used to control authoritarian followers by invoking carefully cultivated reflex reactions. "
As an example of what you're saying, look at the two protests in DC, this past weekend, on the war. Look at a frontal shot of the anti-war protest front stage. Then, look at the same for the pro-war "gathering of eagles". US Flag ratio will be what? 5:1? 10:1?
For Ahmadinejad, this is the gift that keeps on giving. He wins either way. If US says yes, then he can justifiably claim credit for the gesture because he initiated it. If US rejects, then he goes back to the ME and shrugs, saying: "See--I told you. I tried, but they are completely nuts over there. They are angry, unreasonable, and dangerous." If I were him, I'd be making that offer to lay a wreath once or twice a year. Play Bush like the cast-bronze fool that he is.