Letters to the Editor
qazwart
Published Letters: 129 Editor's Choice: 31
-
"Rules are Rules" if You Want to Lose in November
[Read the article: New Michigan delegate compromise offered]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This isn't about the Democratic nomination, but winning the Presidential election. Not seating Michigan and Florida will cause a big split in the Democratic party, and we could lose the election. Whether you like it or not, we need these two states to win.
As for Obama's name not being on the ballot in Michigan: His supporters knew to vote and to vote undecided. That's why undecided is such a large percentage of vote, and it is about what Obama probably would have won if his name was on the ballot.(I think undecided is about 45%, maybe more). Obama's campaign also controls the "undecided" delegation. As far as the convention is concerned, they're Obama's delegates.
Even if you seat the Michigan and Florida delegations as is, Obama still has the most votes so far (if you count Michigan's undecided in Obama's category). This might change with Pennsylvania, but even then, you need to super delegates to decide the race, and they're right now leaning towards Obama.
Me: I would like to see an agreement worked out where the Michigan and Florida delegations are seated as is, but with the understanding that enough of the super delegates who support Clinton will vote "present" instead of for Clinton to compensate. "Vote pairing" happens all the time in Congress, so this isn't such a strange idea.
Obama still gets the nomination because he wins the majority of the votes cast, Obama's team treats Clinton's delegates with a bit of dignity, Michigan and Florida get seated and don't feel left out of the convention. Everybody's happy, and maybe we might actually win in November.
I'd like to see Rumsfeld investigated for war crimes, and that is only going to happen if the Dems win. I'd like to see Cheney investigated too, but I have a feeling he'll move to Dubai to avoid prosecution, and be the first Vice President since Aaron Burr to live in exile. (Come to think of it, Burr also shot someone in the face.)
To me the whole episode does point to very poor leadership with the Democratic party. The "nuclear" option of completely denying a state's delegation seats should have never been given in the first place. The Republicans held a more reasonable 50% penalty, and if the Democrats did that, it would not have been a problem. I'd also like to know what our party leadership allowed this to fester for so long.
Michigan and Florida moved their primary to the beginning of the calendar year because the Democratic leadership did such a lousy job with working out an agreement between the various state parties with primary scheduling. This primary dispute has been going on for years, and it intensified over the last three years.
-
Obama is like Tiger Woods...
[Read the article: The problem with comparing Obama to Tiger Woods]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...because he's likely to win?
The comment makes absolutely no sense at all. We think this was suppose to be a racial put down because it was said by a Republican who is suppose to be supporting McCain. But it is so random, it borders on Dadaism.
I mean think of it: If you ask a random American would they rather meet Tiger Woods or Senator McCain, most would go for Tiger Woods.
-
I'll take your word that these no ones life was in immediate danger
[Read the article: Ask the pilot]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]But what concerned me about the Congressional hearings was the testimony of several inspectors who were told by their management to shut up. Some were threatened with Mafia style warnings. (I understand your wife works for the FAA in Los Angeles, It would be a terrible thing if she was suddenly laid off...)
Yes, the FAA has always had a dual role of both promotion and safety, but never before has it leaned so far from the safety aspect of its mission.
This is pretty much par for the course in this administration. Incompetent people who interfere with the jobs of the professional staff of an agency they're suppose to be overseeing. Unfortunately, this interference could have led to terrible consequences.
-
Bush will Go Free
[Read the article: Would Obama investigate the Bush gang?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There's a problem of investigating Bush -- at least directly.
Each president imagines what would happen once they leave office, will the next president investigate them? When your president, you make certain decisions that could be viewed as "crimes". For example, Clinton bombed Serbia during their attack on Kosovo. Civilians were killed. Was it a war crime? Where would you draw the line? Nixon's bombing of Laos and Cambodia? Lincoln's siege of Vicksburg? When you're president, and you're involved in any sort of war, civilians will get hurt, and someone will always question your actions.
Second guessing the previous administration can be dangerous and I will assume that any president will tread carefully in investigating their predecessor.
However, I do believe that the first investigation will be Gitmo. From there, torture in Iraq will be brought up. Certain Generals will be questioned. That might go to Rumsfeld and to Cheney. Then not torture, but misappropriation of funding will be brought up. Haliburton will be questioned, and Cheney's role in Haliburton will be reviewed. By this time, I suspect that Cheney will resume his role in Haliburton as a top executive which will allow him to exit stage left to Dubai (Haliburton changed last year from an American company to a Dubai company). Where he'll be safe from any sort of prosecution.
If Cheney does move to Dubai to avoid questioning and possible prosecution, he'll be the first Vice President since Aaron Burr to live in exile. (And, by coincidence, Aaron Burr also shot someone in the face. However, Burr's exile was due to running away from creditors rather than prosecution.)