Letters to the Editor
Elephantman
Published Letters: 1312 Editor's Choice: 15
-
No disrespect, Jim...
[Read the article: The GOP is the party of the Iraq war]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]But when Special Ops gets a handle on where bin Laden or Al Zawahiri might be, and there's a Hellfire-armed Predator overhead, I'm hoping that they won't call you for advice.
-
That was a really tough, hard-hitting interview.
[Read the article: The Salon Interview: Elizabeth Edwards]
[Read more letters about this article: Here][Yawn.] Nothing about the $480,000 gig with the Cayman Island hedge fund. No details on Fortress Investment Group LLC. Nothing about medical mapractice and tort reform. Nothing about the laundered donations from trial lawyers in '04.
I am willing to bet that Ann Coulter's attitude toward this woman is that she'd debate her anytime, anywhere. The problem might be the Edwards campaign's open confession that they use confrontations with Ann Coulter for campaign donations. If I were Ann Coulter, I'd decline on that basis alone.
-
Wait just a goddamn minute.
[Read the article: Why David Vitter matters]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think Vitter is a scumbag.*
But the bigger hypocrites are people like Joan Walsh. Joan Walsh says that normally, other people's sex lives are nobody else's business. I guess that would mean that Bill Clinton's sex life, Gary Hart's sex life, and Joe/Jack/Bobby/Teddy Kennedy's sex lives are all nobody else's business. Dog bites man. So far, so good.
Then there are the Republicans. And the only reason that certain Republican's sex lives are Joan Walsh's business is -- [get ready for this] -- they oppose gay marriage. And they speechify about the 'sanctity of marriage.'
Well, bad news for Joan Walsh. Bill Clinton doesn't support gay marriage either. He signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law. As long as the Kennedy boys were good Catholics, one would presume they didn't exactly support gay marriage either. I think I'll leave poor old Gary Hart alone. He's suffered enough, and besides nobody knows who he is anymore. Donna Rice and the "Monkey Business" are both more famous than Gary Hart is now.
So here's the bottom line. Joan Walsh conflates a public policy dispute with a basis for picking and choosing exactly which salacious stories it is okay in her moral cosmology to run with. She says that conservatives who oppose gay marriage deserve it when they are caught in flagrante. But what about Democrats who oppose gay marriage? Exactly what the hell kind of standards are you trying to advance here, Joan?
Never mind. Nobody cares. Really. Nobody cares.
*Let's not forget that other Louisiana scumbag criminal, Representative William "Mr. Freeze" Jefferson. I am trying to remember the last time Joan Walsh expressed any quiet astonishment that Rep. Jefferson has not yet resigned his seat in Congress.
-
Right!
[Read the article: Leave the Muslim world alone]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Kudos to Gary Kamiya for getting this part right:
"The suggestion that we now leave a bunch of fanatical mass murderers alone may strike most Americans as cowardly and morally contemptible."
Yes. It will strike most Americans as cowardly and morally contemptable to leave large part of the world vulnerable to a bunch of fanatical mass murderers. Let's not do that.
Next idea, Gary?
-
The Joan Walsh Crap Production-Mill doubles its output...
[Read the article: Elizabeth Edwards didn't call Hillary Clinton a man]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Just a few weeks ago, Joan Walsh was happily running (false, phony) headlines about how "Ann Coulter called John Edwards a faggot."
When did Joan start to learn how to put such a fine point on the use of quotes out-of-context?
This entire piece could have been written by me, criticizing Joan Walsh, for her careless out-of-context quotation of Ann Coulter, simply by substituting Coulter's/John Edwards' names for those of Elizabeth Edwards/Hillary Clinton, and by substituting "faggot" for "man".
Have you no shame, Joan Walsh? Not the slightest sense of irony or hypocrisy in all of this? Un-freaking-believable.
And let's not be too harsh on Joan Walsh to the exclusion of the callow, opportunist, Mr. and Mrs. Edwards. Please, Democrats; please nominate Edwards. He is the guy we want to destroy in 2008.
-
I am going to remember this...
[Read the article: Sleepless in the Senate]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...the next time that one of President Bush's judicial nominees, who would easily win on a smiple up-or-down floor vote, but is instead bottled up in Leahy's Judiciary Committee, or who is filibustered by Durbin and Kennedy.
That has only happened, by the way, about dozen times over the past three or four years.
What bullshit from the Senate Democrats. What chutzpah. What hypocrisy. That group in the picture has no shame.
-
Dear Mr. Greenwald:
[Read the article: The National Review mind]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I am wondering; is there a Salon-specific search engine that I can employ to count the number of Salon letter-writers who have openly advocated or mused about the assasination of President Bush, or Vice President Cheney, or who have categorized all Republicans (or should I say, all Republikans/Repukes/Repugs) as racist, facist, genocidal maniacs?
Clearly, we'll need a spreadsheet to compile all of the vile, hateful, political pronouncements that your own readership is responsible for.
Your adoring fan,
Elephantman
PS - Isn't it a shame that "the National Review mind" story wasn't about debating the ideas of its founder, William F. Buckley, but instead focused on what some unnamed person said on a cruise ship?
-
Glenn -
[Read the article: The National Review mind]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Actually, you did sort of ignore Buckley while paying lip-service to him at the same time.
To put it more simply, for the benefit of your readership (you're smart enought to know this already, clearly), there is no "neocon" hegemony at the National Review. Bill Buckley has been openly, vocally critical of much of Bush's war policy. As have many other NR writers.
If you really wanted to pick an organ of neocon orthodoxy, you wouldn't even pick the NR, you'd pick the Weekly Standard. But of course the Weekly Standard hasn't been running the country for the last six years either.
Anyway, I don't think you guys ought to weigh in with your thoughtful ratings of the National Review any more than I would tell you what to think about the standing of The Nation within the Edwards campaign.
Not that I care all that much. Whatever you might think of the National Review is of little consequence to them.
What is clearly wrong, and quite offensive, is to have someone pronounce about how all Republicans can be characterized by the stray comments of a few people on a cruise.
Again, sincerely,
Elephantman (Or, as your urbane, civilized readership calls me, "Elephantdung")