Letters to the Editor
Elephantman
Published Letters: 1312 Editor's Choice: 15
-
"Bill Conyers"?
[Read the article: The Republicans who would've impeached Bush?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Ohio Congressman (and presidential candidate)Dennis Kucinich is currently trying to impeach Cheney, on three charges: Lying about WMDs in Iraq, lying about the Iraq-Al Quaida link, and threatening war with Iranö. The Privileged house resolution he introduced is currently in commitee. However, on this committee, there are several, including the chair, Bill Conyers, who are sympathetic to impeachment, so the problem lies with the party leadership.
However, the dynamics could change if Conyers and the others were shown that they have popular support. That's why a bunch of people have launched a plan to head to Washington DC and camp out in front of the senate, starting December 4th, to show that they support impeachment. They started a YouTube channel "DecemberFourth2007" and I encourage anyone to take a look.
THIS is the kind of stuff that Salon should talk about, since the MSM won't report on it! We need you guys to do your duty.
"Bill Conyers"? Do you mean JOHN Conyers? John Conyers is the congressman from Detroit who, during a time when he was campaigning for mayor, was found on the median of a large street holding a handwritten campaign sign and without shoes or pants on, and was gently ushered away by sympathetic police officers. Earlier, while still a member of the House of Representatives, he had disappeared for almost two weeks without explanation. He's also the congressman who apologized to the House a couple of years ago for passing out holiday turkeys to staff and friends; the turkeys had been donated to go to poor families. Is that the John Conyers you were talking about?
-
Edwards' stock-in-trade wasn't in suing corporations like Enron or Adelphia; Edwards' specialty was in suing North Carolina obstetricians.
[Read the article: John Edwards hits his stride]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You all have been listneing to one too many Edwards class-warfare speeches.
-
If you give Bill, or Hillary, enough nuance, practically anything is true.
[Read the article: Was Bill Clinton "opposed" to the Iraq war "from the beginning"?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It sounds great while they are doing the talking, but in the end, there can be only one truth... Raise taxes, or not? Ruth Bader Ginsberg or Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court? Did you have sex with "that woman, Miss Lewinsky," or not? Per Bill's book, was Hillary named after Sir Edmund, or not? Per Gennifer Flowers' book, has Hillary "eaten more pussy", or not?
-
BWF?
[Read the article: "Single anxious female" seeks president]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Is this in the "Women Seeking Women" category?
-
"No, what sent me into a free fall of depression was CNN's instinct for the fatuous in choosing the debate questions."
[Read the article: The godawful GOP debate ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Hmmm. Does anybody suppose that perhaps there's a story there? Like, how weird would it be if, say, CNN was picking questions planted by Democrats? No, that couldn't happen; that's just too crazy to think about. Only right-wing Fox pulls shit like that. Right?
-
Dear Tim Grieve ~
[Read the article: Tell us again why you're retiring, Senator]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I hope you won't mind too much if the Op-Ed page of the Wall Street Journal links to this item.
You see, this was the reason why, when Lott committed that humorless gaffe at Strom Thurmond's birthday party, he found virtually no moral support in the Republican party. And why so many Republicans found relief in his no longer being the Senate Republican leader. And why not a single tear is now being shed at his departure.
We con only hope that Dickie Scruggs goes to a federal prison for a very, very, very long time. If he takes with him Lott, and Gene Taylor, and half the firm of Motley Ness, and every other member of that ilk, so much the better.
You just can't even hope to spin the Scruggs indictment into a partisan advantage for Democrats.
-
This is NOT a Republican scandal.
[Read the article: Tell us again why you're retiring, Senator]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Isn't Dickie Scruggs an active supporter of John Edwards? Wasn't Scruggs' office one of a significant number of plaintiff-personal injury lawfirms who were found to have more or less laundered campaign donations to the Edwards/04 primary campaign?
What I do know is that his relationship with Dickie Scruggs made Lott a bit of a pariah in Republican circles, and that Lott's involvement in the lawsuit over Katrina property damage claims was little short of an embarassment to the party.
If anybody has any evidence of Republican Party support coming from Dickie Scruggs, or Republican Party initiatives conferring benefits on Dickie Scruggs, by all means fill us in. Just please distinguish personal donations/favors by and between Lott and Scruggs.
What any close analyis will find is that Dickie Scruggs enthusiastically supported Lot because, well, "they's kinfolk!" And that outside of that relationship, Dickie Scruggs was the same kind of Democratic Party whore that most personal injury lawyers are...
-
I've seen (today) those internet-based rumors about Trent Lott's having paid a male escort. The escort, who was originally alleged to be the source of the information, says it never happened. Never. Happened.
[Read the article: Tell us again why you're retiring, Senator]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]But again, Trent Lott's relationship to his brother-in-law Dickie Scruggs, and his lack of bona fides on a number of tort reform and insurance issues, and his crapola property-damage lawsuit, will make his going-away party in the Senate a happy one for many if not most Republicans.
And with Lott gone, and the liberal blogosphere having now so recently played the gay-sex-rumor card, there will be no end to the scrutiny of Hillary Clinton's sex life, with or without Huma Abedin. You compare the information supporting a bisexual Senator Clinton versus a bisexual Senator Lott, and it is staggeringly one-sided.
The "BlogActive" author, Mike Rogers, who hounded Larry Craig for months if not years, hasn't touched the Hillary Clinton story, as far as I know. (The kind of thing that Rogers might rightly say about Hillary is that "on a scale of 1 to 10 my gaydar tripped a 15.") But Rogers seems to have largely concluded that the Trent Lott/gay-sex story was b.s. Enquiring minds want to know...
-
But wasn't this exactly the position of the NYT in regard to the Dan Rather/Mary Mapes Memogate scandal? That despite the fact that the memos were fakes, the story had sufficient truthiness to it?
[Read the article: Facts are still stupid things]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Come on, Salon; help me out here.