Letters to the Editor
whiterosey
Published Letters: 12
-
Scary but Plausible Theory
[Read the article: Democrats' responsibility for Bush radicalism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The great Molly Ivins said that the Bushies made her feel like a tinfoil-hat-wearing conspiracy theorist because their brazen public law-breaking made her wonder what they're doing behind closed doors.
When House Democrats inexplicably cave on one issue after another, I have to wonder if they're the victims, not only of the surveillance, but of blackmail as well. These Watergate retreads have trotted out every other Nixonian trick, so why NOT spying on the opposition? That would certainly explain why no one seems to want to ask (at least not publicly) the obvious quetion: who are they spying on?
-
Believe it!
[Read the article: Clinton and the GOP's anti-endorsement]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The Bushies' 2004 election strategy was to attack the weakest Dem (Kerry) in the hopes that the party faithful would do the enemy-of-my-enemy thing and rally round. Meanwhile they ignored and/or ridiculed the stronger candidates (Edwards and Dean). And of course the rest is history.
In other words, John Kerry was Karl Rove's briar-patch candidate. This is not a nutty conspiracy theory, but a strategy described with triumphal hubris by Matthew Dowd, just after the election, then recounted in an August 2007 L.A. Times piece. Recalling the pre-primary kid gloves and the general election savagery that John Kerry experienced, I tend to take Dowd at his word. It worked for the GOP once, so why is it so hard to believe that they would do it again? Leaving aside her neo-con positions on Iran and Iraq and her general refusal to take a definitive stand on other issues, Democrats would be crazy to let Karl Rove pick their candidate again.
REPUBLICANS ARE NOT dEMOCRATS!
see:
-
Having both ways . . . as always.
[Read the article: Obama on "boys against girl"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]She's as tough as the guys/don't pick on her because she's just a girl. This is the same double-talk that's illustrated by her "stance" on Iraq, Iran and now, famously on drivers' licences for undocumented immigrants. The goal is to change the subject from her compulsive triangulation. This campaign seems to be taking its cues from Karl Rove.
-
Does Rove pay a royalty for every haircut mention?
[Read the article: Obama goes for the capillaries]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I couldn't possibly say it better than rbrooks did, but I can provide a link to Glenn Greenwald's excellent treatment of hypocricy around the haircut "issue".
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/07/17/politico/index.html
-
Don't change the subject, Salon.
[Read the article: On the fake campaign trail]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This is about Hillary and the sad truth is right before our eyes. She's loaded, entitled and inevitable. She seems to think she literally doesn't have to answer to any rank and file voter.
Iowa and New Hampshire Dems: Please don't be lulled into playing along with the next act in this bit of theater we used to call democracy: the part where you obediently vote for Hillary in spite of the fact that she's earned your mistrust and you know she's not the strongest candidate.Please, please please don't vote Clinton!
-
Edwards/Obama would give this still-racist country eight peaceful
[Read the article: Who is the most "electable" Democrat?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]and prosperous years to get used to the idea of a black president. Given the bully pulpit, Edwards could expose the con that is the southern strategy, letting America in on the fact that it's money, not race, that makes our interests diverge.
-
mc wrote: "Recall that John Kerry was highly touted . . . .
[Read the article: Who is the most "electable" Democrat?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]as the 'most electable' challenger to Bush 4 years ago. Turns out, he was so safe, so middle of the road, that the most unpopular president in generations had little trouble tearing him down."
The problem wasn't the concept of electabilty. The problem was who was doing the touting: the pundit class and Karl Freaking Rove! All the while they were ridiculing Dean and ignoring Edwards because they would have been tough to beat. The touters did not have the Democratic party's best interest at heart.
Who do they like this year? A black man who's under 50 and and less than halfway through his first term in the senate and what might be the most reviled white woman in America. Both of them, aside from their demographic specialness, are also remarkably safe and middle of the road. If you get all your news from the MSM you might think that nobody else is running. Be very afraid. The Dems need to look at the whole field and make their own judgments about electability. Not one vote has been cast. It's not too late.
-
@shotgunfreude
[Read the article: Media hostility toward anti-establishment candidates]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]“Obama's ability to win the hearts of the establishment even while proposing major reforms speaks to his effectiveness.”
It speaks to his effectiveness at winning the hearts of the establishment but it doesn’t say anything about his willingness, much less his ability to actually effect change. For that you have to look to his decidedly cautious record in the U.S. senate, especially compared to his votes in the Illinois lege. Vague promises of change and sketchy proposals made on the campaign trail aren’t worth much if they’re unaccompanied by any concrete legislation or serious advocacy.
As far as I’m concerned, Obama’s ability to attract an unquestioningly loyal following, coupled with the disparity between his deeds and rhetoric, are precisely what’s attracting all those admirers among the bobbling heads and captains of industry.
also:
"The press's negative reactions to confrontational anti-establishment rhetoric is likely to be symptomatic of the reactions of other establishment elements to the same confrontational anti-establishment rhetoric."
I don't think Glenn is saying that the MSM is "reacting to the confrontational anti-establishment rhetoric". (btw, since when did confronting budding totalitarianism become a vice?) I understand him to be saying just the opposite: that they're ignoring anti-establishment candidates altogether.