Letters to the Editor
burlydee
Published Letters: 284 Editor's Choice: 7
-
Gingrich is Unpredictable
[Read the article: Newt goes off message]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Gingrich is fairly unpredictable, probably the top reason he doesn't have a place in presidential politics. He will slap Democrats with one hand, and than backhand Republicans in the same motion.
He knows he should stay on point. That why he brought up Hillary. He knows, to get the applause, he should go in their and mock Hillary, Edwards and Obama. He should claim that the problems in Detroit or New Orleans are THEIR fault, and not the problems of US society as a whole. He should say we are winning in Iraq, despite all evidence to the contrary. He knows it, and mostly he plays along, but sometimes he falls off message. I feel like he gets tired of hearing his own BS sometimes.
I don't think Gingrich is at all moving to the left. No unity ticket for him. But I believe he is a "true" conservative, who recognizes the future of the Republican party is in extreme peril because it has been taken over by extremists and cheerleaders. The extremists set policy, the cheerleaders applaud the policy no matter what the outcome.
There is no longer any intellectual honesty in modern conservatism. There is only winning - us against them. Conservatives v. Liberals, traditional families v. feminists and gays, whites v. blacks, christians v. muslims, rich v. poor. There is no consistency from one idea to the next. Only justifications for any and all actions the Leaders undertake. What are Karl Rove and Bush's policy objectives but to win, and to protect their status (and the status of their friends) in the US? There isn't a rule they won't break, a lie they won't tell.
I think this is what Gingrich is hinting at in his speech. Intellectual dishonesty is becoming the heart of conservatism. Only an extremists, a cheerleader or a fool could paint the last 6 years as a success. Under Bush, the country is literally falling apart. You can play for cheers or you can tell the truth; but you can't do both.
-
White Man's Burden
[Read the article: The burden of being John Edwards]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The Edwards' have to be kidding me? In a country that has never nominated a black man or a woman to even represent either party for the president, he is going to complain about unfair treatment? Being black really helped Alan Keyes, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton. Being a woman vaulted Elizabeth Dole to the head of the class. Perhaps if the Edwards' attacked the candidates with substance instead of seeking to appeal to the inner-racist of blue collar whites they would gain more traction in the national polls. Why is it that every time a woman or a minority gets ahead competing against a white male they pull the race card? Obama and Hillary can't just be running better campaigns, it has to be because of their ethnic or gender status that attracts media attention. I guess that is the same reasons Edwards trailed Clark, Kerry, Dean in '04. Wait... oh he only makes this argument when losing to blacks or women. We should all forget that he lost twice! in '04.
Instead of galvanizing support, they have turned me a former Edwards supporter, into an Obama supporter. I just don't believe he can be counted on to show the leadership or strength needed to lead the country in a progressive manner.
-
Real Political Expediency
[Read the article: How did the T get in LGBT?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The real politically smart thing to do, would for the Democratic party to throw the T's under the bus. And than, throw the B's, G's, the L's and any other letters you can think of.
I find it very ironic for a gay man to talk about political expediency, when so many straight Dem and Liberal supporters have been taking it on the chin in the last 2 presidential elections because of their support of gay rights. If we had your attitude Aravosis, there would be no gay rights movement. Hell, there would not have been a civil rights movement if everyone had the attitude of "I've got to get my rights, screw everyone else."
But I think the saddest thing about your viewpoint is that you are wrong about the politics here! Gay rights have been expanding despite what is going on in Washington, not because of it. You win acceptance with a united community. You can pass all the laws you want, they are meaningless unless you can change the mind of the people. Passing legislation won't change people's mind. The political winds could easily blow the opposite direction and you can have R's passing laws that enact opposite provisions in 10 years. But if you change people's minds that can last generations. And the only way you change people's minds is with a strong principled stand. Your piecemeal, butt-kissing, Clintonesque appeasement of people who would discriminate against innocent people, is the kind of wormy, unprincipled actions that led from 8 years of Clinton to 8 years of Bush.
Cowardice in the face of discrimination does not work. Neither does selfishness.
-
What did the group of 88 do?
[Read the article: Is Bill O'Reilly sorry now?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I've never heard of them... what are you asking them to apologize for?
-
Nevermind - I googled the group of 88
[Read the article: Is Bill O'Reilly sorry now?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It is a ridiculous comparison. Completely and totally disingenuous. False equivalency at its worst.
There is no defense of what O'Reilly did to this boy or what Malkin and other right wing idiots are doing to Graehme Frost and his family.
Why do right wingers want to make the Duke case political? It is purely a criminal act (false accusation). The right wing plays the race card far more than even OJ's defense lawyers.