Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 77 Editor's Choice: 8
-
On the other hand...
[Read the article: How can I compete with my girlfriend's last boyfriend?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...you could just be a rebound until she finds another rocker with a big penis.
Just kidding.
It has been my experience that people--men and women--take relationships individually. I suppose some people may try to recreate previous ones, but most people like the fact that a new relationship defines itself. That's part of the pleasure of it--you get to start again, create something new, and even, if you're on the young side, redefine yourself if you want.
Besides, if she wants a little more kink she'll ask.
-
"Fear And Smear"
[Read the article: Cheney's politics of fear and smear]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]How nice to see Sen. Kerry finally using well-constructed, concise phrases.
We're glad to help.
http://www.pookastew.com/k123/2004/10/smear-and-fear.html
-
If Only.
[Read the article: Woodward's disgrace]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Would that all the media accomplices to the Bush Administration's lies were exposed as Woodward has been. He sure ain't the only one.
-
One Other Thing...
[Read the article: The long march of Dick Cheney]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Great article. I would add that Cheney learned, from Watergate, that control of the media message was paramount.
What the rest of us learned from Watergate was the ramifications of the failures of leadership. What Cheney and Rumsfeld learned was that if they controlled the message they could get away with anything.
-
?
[Read the article: The long march of Dick Cheney]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Are you seriously comparing the relative "political power" of a career journalist who served as a "special assistant" to Bill Clinton to that of Dick Cheney--who has been Deputy Assistant to the President, Assistant to the President, White House Chief of Staff, five-term Congressman, Chairman of the Republican Policy Committee, Chairman of the House Republican Conference, House Minority Whip, Secretary of Defense, CEO of one of the nation's largest defense contrators, and, oh yeah, Vice President?
You may object to Clinton's centrism, but holding Sidney Blumenthal accountable for not stopping Dick Cheney's march to darkness is not even remotely reasonable.
Frankly, I think Blumenthal is EXACTLY the right person to set the record straight on Cheney. And i think he did a great job.
-
Evil Genius?
[Read the article: The long march of Dick Cheney]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't think Sidney Blumenthal is saying that Dick Cheney is an "evil genius". Ruthless ideologue is more like it. And one who has historically been wrong about just about everything.
I agree that the media dropped the ball on Cheney, but let's face it--they dropped the ball on George W. Bush, and, in fact, the entire Republican agenda. Or worse--they were in on the con from the start.
Now that the poll numbers reflect a reality they can't ignore, the press is suddenly "discovering" just how radical and incompetent these people are.
Why and how the press allowed this to happen is a real story--and it's something to bear in mind before you go blaming specific "liberal" pundits and politicians: until recently, anyone who questioned this cabal got their heads handed to them by the media--time and again. Just ask Marty Meehan.
-
Actually...
[Read the article: The long march of Dick Cheney]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...I think it's perfectly fair to take a step back and consider the career arc of someone who's gone so far being so wrong about so much. What does Cheney have on his side, exactly, other than a talent for getting ahead?
Kissinger and Clinton had rational positions one could agree or disagree with. Cheney's career is based on his dogged devotion to an ideology that has no basis in reality. He owes his position solely to his being the poster boy for delusory right-wing extremism.
-
Why do you presume...
[Read the article: The long march of Dick Cheney]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...that local Republicans in Kansas can beat someone up, but Dick Cheney can do "nothing" but call his enemies names?
I suspect a ruthless multi-millionaire ideologue who happens to be Vice-President of the United States and who has 7/8 of the media doing his bidding could probably do a number on you if he wanted.
Why do you think no one crosses these people--'cause they don't have the guts or the brains? Or because they're too "bourgeois"? Please--they're scared s***less.
These people pulled off a coup d'etat and took control of the country; they can do anything they want. They're ruthless, they've got control of the media, and they have all the funding they need.
Go ahead, get yourself on TV and "kick their asses" --and see what happens to you. They impeached a two-term President for getting a blow job.
-
That Dick Cheney...
[Read the article: The long march of Dick Cheney]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...sure sucks, huh?
-
Money.
[Read the article: The long march of Dick Cheney]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"But what dumbfounds me is how come it's the Cheney (libertarian) wing of the republican party that seems to be pushing so strongly for such a powerful state."
It's the business side that's pushing that. Cheney's a money guy.
They want a strong executive for the same reason they like strong CEOs: control, power, and money. They're not interested in democracy or justice--they want control. With a strong executive and control of the legislature business gets whatever it wants.
The current right-wing assault on the judiciary is the money's attack on the last remaining branch they don't control. The courts are the only place business can still lose.
-
Cherry Picking.
[Read the article: Scary screeds about Maureen Dowd, written by threatened men]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I dunno, I read a bunch of thoughtful criticism of Dowd's book--and Traister's review. Seems like she picked one outrageous one around which to build her follow-up article, and thereby paint all of Dowd's male critics as "threatened". Pretty lame.
Are ALL of the men who disdained the book and review "threatened"? What about the women?
Why not try the same trick with a more representative sample? Can't do it, can you Ms. Traister?
-
His credulity was exposed?
[Read the article: The Woodward coverup]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Isn't Blumenthal going a little easy on Woodward? Given his statements before his cover was blown, readers have every reason to believe he was in on the Iraq war con, and not just a victim of "cunning sources".
It was Woodward's complicity that was exposed, not his credulity.