Letters to the Editor
casual_observer
Published Letters: 1249 Editor's Choice: 1
-
These are the same
[Read the article: The Giuliani moderation fallacy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]what I said:
"Greenwald has used polls to contrast the differences between what media figures are putting forth and what the public actually believes."
What Whispers said:
"Actually, Greenwald typically puts forward polling data to rebut the claims of politicians and the media about what the public think."
To be clearer, I should have written ..."putting forth as public perception"...
My intended meaning was the same as Whispers'.
"In the current situation, Glenn is not claiming that the public thinks Giuliani is not moderate. Glenn is saying that he, Glenn Greenwald, thinks Giuliani is not moderate."
No. He's saying that the label of 'moderate' in Giuliani's case is a "fallacy". My argument is that Glen is incorrect. It is not a fallacy--rather, when he looked at in a way different from Glen's--on social issues--Giuliani is indeed moderate when compared to others in the republican field.
I agree with your 'aside' by the way. And would add that not only is the center or moderate political sector very strangely defined these days--the left and right are equally FUBAR.
-
Greenwald @ Proof
[Read the article: The Giuliani moderation fallacy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Do you have any proof for that?"
My proof will be found immediately next to the data that proves your statement "...is depicted as "moderate" by our press corps and therefore widely perceived as such."
-
Greenwald @ definitions
[Read the article: The Giuliani moderation fallacy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"But they're not saying that he's a "moderate on social issues" - they're saying that he's a moderate, period."
This is because social values are the preponderate (but not exclusive) definers of what a "moderate" and "conservative" and "liberal" IS.
-
Anonymust
[Read the article: The Giuliani moderation fallacy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Conservatives have always tended to be hawks, no? (I suppose Greenwald will ask me for proof of this blatant statement.) And if war-mongering were the principle criterion, then McCain would be out in front by a mile. The fact that he is not is due to other factors, many of them "value" issues. He is simply to 'squishy' on 'values' for conservatives to trust him. (I regret I have no proof for this assertion either. It's almost as if these things I'm writing are nothing but damn opinions).
-
Assisting Dodd
[Read the article: Lawbreaking telecoms still conniving to obtain immunity from Congress]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]For those who appreciate Dodd's efforts, one way to support him is to assist is retiring the debt incurred in his presidential run. The following is a call for help from the Senator:
...I'm working hard as ever, to restore the Constitution, stop that terrible FISA bill and put a Democrat in the White House.
But after our incredible journey campaigning for the Presidency, there is something that does need retiring: our debt.
My internet team tells me the campaign inbox was flooded with messages of thanks and inquiries about how you can continue to help now that the presidential campaign is over.
Today, you can help by contributing financially to our effort to retire the campaign debt.
http://www.chrisdodd.com/contribute
I've spent the past days with my wife and family, unwinding after a grueling process that changed the debate at home and abroad -- that is our legacy from the campaign.
FEC rules preclude me from using the email list to talk much about the war, the upcoming FISA fight and other issues we championed throughout the campaign, but let me assure you: our work will continue with the same commitment you have come to expect from me.
But today, can you help retire our campaign debt?
http://www.chrisdodd.com/contribute
Unfortunately, this email list and our campaign website can only exist to help retire the debt, but the good news is that I'll soon have a new site, my internet team has promised to see through what we started last October, and you'll be hearing from us soon about the next steps on FISA.
Thank you, so much, for everything.
Chris Dodd
-
McCain: The Better Bush
[Read the article: Conceding John McCain's "toughness" on national security]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Bush was a fake fighter pilot, with a fake service record, which itself was fakely researched and reported on by a fake media.
McCain, on the other hand, was a real fighter pilot, who saw real service action, bravely intercepting a North Vietnamese surface to air missile with his own aircraft (this is how he jokingly refers to the incident himself). McCain's great republican strength is that he felt that the war was not warrish enough. Insufficiently warrish. So he's a real improvement over Bush in these two critical areas of personal history and war policy. With McCain, the Republicans may well have a nominee who meets the same lofty standards as their highest uber-hero, David Petraeus.
Meanwhile, the democratic establishment is doing the best it can to select Hillary Clinton, and to suppress Barack Obama (arguably the least warlike candidate remaining on the democractic side). With surprising help from unexpected quarters such as FireDogLake. Where just a few days ago Looseheadprop wrote a fabulously cheap and wonderfully crooked hit piece on Obama based on an already-debunked Obama-Rezko relationship theme. If media matters for america would ever deign to research a story from the progressive side of the fence, they'd have a field day with this piece by LHP at FDL.
McCain, as Greenwald said, is a slow pitch over the middle of the plate. He should be smacked over the centerfield wall for a home run. And yet, the democrats are pulling out all the stops to find a way for him to win.