Letters to the Editor
rphillips111
Published Letters: 222 Editor's Choice: 3
-
Losses Change nothing?
[Read the article: Obama insists losses change nothing]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In fact, Obama's losses in Texas, Rhode Island, and Ohio yesterday changed a lot of things. The voters in three out of four states rejected Barack Obama and chose Hillary Clinton instead. The "invincibility" of Obama's campaign wass shattered. And for the first time, real criticism of Obama are surfacing, even in the hotbed of Obamania--the media.
The forces opposed to Hillary Clinton were enormous. They included the Obama organization, which is well-funded, ruthless, and well organized. The adoring media gave him millions of dollars of free positive publicity, and gave Hillary as much or more bad publicity. Including orchestrated calls for her to withdraw from the campaign before the primaries, a statement from the Obama camp that unless Hillary won by "double digits"--at least 10 points--it was not a win at all, and numerous unflattering images of Hillary in the media.
-
Obama: The BIG LIE Guy
[Read the article: No Texas-size victory for Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Obama lost Texas, Ohio, and Rhode Island last Tuesday, and claimed victory. That is called the "big lie technique" and is used to create favorable (but false) images of the guy telling the lie, and fool his audience.
Obama's favorite word "Change" is massive dishonesty, too. It's his whole platform, but he doesn't say what he means by "Change". Once Obama starts talking about what he really means by "Change", he'll lose support every time he opens his mouth.
Obama and his supporters reveal an additional streak of dishonesty when they accuse Hillary Clinton of supporting the war. True, she supported it at the beginning, and so did almost every other congressman. In addition, she is Senator from New York, where the World Trade Center was hit. No way she could have voted other than she did. In her place Obama sure as hell would have voted the same way, and indeed he has since the came to the Senate. There war record is the same.
If all these posters want a candidate totally against the war in his record, they had one in the democratic Primaries. Dennis Kucinich voted against the war from day one. almost alone in Congress, but you did not vote for him. You're just proud to be for Obama even if you have to invent reasons, right?
-
Who Would The GOP Rather Face?
[Read the article: Who would the GOP rather face?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I am a conservative, and I don't any of the three candidates.
I think it will be very hard for John McCain to win the election. He will still have the veterans with him, a lot of high powered special interests (he has more lobbyists in his campaign than any other candidate), and the REpublican Party Machine and Mehlman and Rove. He will get a lot of the hispanice votes, because he supports amnesty. He will also continue to get pretty good press from the liberal mainstream media. But McCain will continue the Bush Wars and Foreign policy, and everyone knows that. The dead bodies on that mountain will be very hard for him to climb over. In addition to that, his carefully nurtured image of the "Maverick" hides a business-- as--usual--in--Washington record which will likely be peeled away in the campaign. He will looked more two-faced than Janus by the end of the campaign. I will never vote for John McCain.
Beyond that, McCain is an emissary from the past. His views date basically from WWII and the Cold War, and he will be 72 years old by the time he takes office.
Obama will have the same advantages against McCain he has against Hillary, including the kid gloves treatment. McCain will not want to be seen as attacking a black guy. Obama has also used the same arguments against Hillary he will use against McCain, which will have proved devastatingly effective if he gets the Demo nomination. Obama won't get my vote, because he's a power-hungry marxist with a carefully crafted misleading public persona. A poster for Obama on another story on the net asked "What's wrong with voting for someone who can organize a great team and gives wonderful inspiring speehes?" Well, nothing. Except Marxist Vladimir Lenin and Socialist/fascist Adolph Hitler had "great" organization and gave "inspiring" speeches. Both were among the greatest political monsters in history.
Hillary, too, will have the advantage of her Gender in a matchup with McCain. Especially after her nomination. The liberal media which is so enamored of "OBama Obama" now will coalesce somewhat around Hillary, but not entirely (Dick Morris has admitted McCain is liberal, so the media won't go completely against him). And while McCain has the veterans, Hillary has women. She has gotten a lot of hispanic votes in the contest with Obama. She will also have conservatives like myself who oppose the Iraq War, McCain's Amnesty plans, and despise the hypocritical egomaniac behind his carefully contrived, flag draped public persona.
Of course, a lot of us voters are going to stay home this election.
-
Major Differences?
[Read the article: Who would the GOP rather face?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Ellis Diablo, you point out Barack Obama opposed the Iraq war at the beginning and Hillary Clinton did not. Hillary Clinton was Senator from New York, where 911 occurred and almost 3000 of Hillary's constituents were killed. Along with almost every other member of the Senate, she voted to give the Iraq war authorization.
Had Barack Obama been Senator from almost anywhere, but certainly from New York in 2002, I am sure he would have voted for the war authorization. As evidence of that, since he has been in the U.S. Senate, Obama has voted with Hillary Clinton to continue funding the Iraq War. Whether he was for the war then, he has voted to fund it since. The media has helped Obama misrepresent the facts about the Iraq war.
As for health care, I personally want to choose my doctor and my health care plan, so I doubt I would support anything like the Canadian or English plans I am under the impression Obama supports.
-
Tragic Fall
[Read the article: The tragic fall of Eliot Spitzer]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Well, as Lord Acton observed, "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Even good men are bad men." One would hae thought Spritzer would know better . . .
Hey, didn't he head the "Harvard Law Review" when he was in college?