Letters to the Editor
Dan
Published Letters: 24 Editor's Choice: 3
-
Maybe--deep down--women are uncomfortable with their own power
[Read the article: Yes, Maureen Dowd is necessary]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]When I hear women complain about the male inability to respect intelligence and power in the opposite sex, I often wonder whether they share the same insecurities about female dominance. Is it possible that "successful" women like Traister and Dowd struggle in their search for a male companion because they are predisposed toward being attracted to men who are taller, older, richer, and stronger? Some will argue this mentality is evolutionary, and others will claim it's societal; but regardless of its origins, I find it to be more common than many of us would like to admit.
In her interview with Benjamin Kunkel about his novel, Indecision, Ms. Traister said, "That assumption, that generally young men are unworthy of their female counterparts, is certainly in your book. I would get hanged for saying it, but there's an uncomfortable truth there." Perhaps these men are worthwhile, contributing members of society, but because they don't occupy a status-level that is, at the very least, akin to that of Ms. Traister, she finds them sexually unappealing.
I've been a long-time believer in the benefits of feminism, and I generally have not wavered. But I've begun to wonder if women have unwittingly rendered men less attractive.
-
Jose Canseco
[Read the article: Bumiller and Bush: Amigos!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Are you telling me that you actually trust Jose Canseco as a reliable source?
-
Point taken, however...
[Read the article: Marty Peretz and the fringe pro-war movement]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There is little doubt a danger exists in Democratic opposition to the war in Iraq. Whether or not it's justified, much of the country seems to believe Democrats are a bunch of wusses. If the Democratic opposition to the war is perceived as pacifism, it could spell disaster in November.
There are two keys, I believe. The Democrats must exploit the ineptitude of the war's execution. They must convince the electorate that the Democratic Party would be more militarily competent. Second, the Democrats should take a page from the Republican playbook by fearmongering--argue that the war has made us less safe.
Otherwise, Democrats may come across as wussy pacifists who won't fight for our protection.
It's also worthwhile to remember that there is less danger for a Republican opponent to the war, because the party has already established its national security credentials.
In other words, only Nixon could go to China.
-
Re: Buying the lies.
[Read the article: Marty Peretz and the fringe pro-war movement]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Paul,
Perhaps my letter was sloppily written in my haste to post a comment while at work. I should have written, "The electorate believes the Republican Party has stronger national security credentials than the Democrats."
However, your insult was unjustified. A closer read of letter reveals that it was written with the perception of the electorate in mind. Look at the context.
Regardless of the ignorance of the belief that Republicans are superior at defending our nation, that is how people feel. The Democrats need to attack that position by promoting THEIR ability to defend the country.
-
Independents
[Read the article: Riding the "macaca" wave]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The "2" will not be Jeffords and Lieberman. Jeffords is retiring, and his seat is expected to be filled by independent Bernie Sanders.
-
Washington Post poll
[Read the article: Pew poll: GOP cuts Dems' lead]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It also showed a Republican trend, with Democrats leading amongst likely voters, 51-45. It has been 55-41.
The Pew and Washington Post polls were conducted from November 1-November 4.
A Newsweek poll, conducted the 2nd and 3rd, has Democrats leading 54-38 amongst likely voters.
What's the explanation for the differences?
And Marianna, your conspiracy theory is grounded in absolutely no reality.
-
voting test
[Read the article: Pew poll: GOP cuts Dems' lead]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Ummm, Iconoclast, that isn't democracy.
-
The founders' democracy
[Read the article: Pew poll: GOP cuts Dems' lead]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Iconoclast--By educated and politically engaged, do you mean white male landowners?
-
This should make us all breathe a bit easier
[Read the article: An inevitable tightening or a cause for panic?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The latest CNN poll gives Democrats a 20-point lead:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/06/demos.poll/index.html
-
re: oversampling
[Read the article: Tightening race? Not in these polls]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Actually, the Fox News poll has been kinder (surprise, surprise) to the Republicans than most of the others.
Here are the results from the last five Fox News polls:
41-38
49-38
50-41
49-38
49-36
Clearly, the trend favors the Democrats.
-
scare tactics
[Read the article: Tightening race? Not in these polls]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It makes so much sense now. The Republican Party has convinced Fox News to manipulate its poll to scare its viewers into voting. Meanwhile, the Republican Party has also convinced CNN to manipulate its poll to lull its Democratic viewers into a false sense of security, increasing the odds that Democratic turnout will be low.
To quote Homer Simpson, "In case you couldn't tell, I was being sarcastic!"
I have read some absurd conspiracy theories in the War Room comments the past two days. Here's a sample:
"That' the real obscenity is that whether the voting machines work or not, the results were tabulated long ago."
"The pollsters are all moving into line with Karl Rove's command--er, prediction, so that no one questions whether the elections were rigged when the Republicans "win big" on Tuesday."
"I think these straw polls help to reflect and reinforce any sort of wrongly begotten numbers these not-so-tamperproof Accu-Vote machines will spew out tomorrow."
Of course, none of these are backed up with a shred of evidence. We accuse Republicans and their supporters of being ignorant, while proudly claiming membership in the reality-based community. Yet, if these comments are any indication, liberals are equally capable of distorting information to support their prejudices.
-
2004 polls
[Read the article: Tightening race? Not in these polls]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Actually, there was no consensus amongst the polls that Kerry would win. Here's a list of the national polls taken before the 2004 election. You'll see that some polls had Bush leading; others had Kerry ahead.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2004/info/polls-2004.html
-
I don't believe this is minor
[Read the article: Romney '08 over before it begins?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm also a Massachusetts resident. Romney should not be expected to check the green cards of all the immigrants tending to his property. However, it is common knowledge that many undocument workers are employed in the lawn services industry. If he is going to make such a stink about illegal immigrants and the businesses who employ them, he should have asked the owner to provide proof that they lived in the United States legally.
As the chief executive of the state government, it is his job to make sure laws are carried out. This does not apply only when he is in the corner office at the Massachusetts State House. It also applies to his personal life.
-
Ignore dendrio
[Read the article: Romney '08 over before it begins?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]He's just looking for a rise.