Letters to the Editor
rphillips111
Published Letters: 222 Editor's Choice: 3
-
Attack on Hillary
[Read the article: The GOP attack plan for Hillary Clinton]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It looks like the Obama camp has stolen the GOP plan ahead of time. Obamaniacs are already claiming that Hillary is trying to "steal" the nomination. The Obama camp will stop at nothing to become President, and with good reason.
His carefully manufactured image, assisted immensely by the MSM, will only last for a short time. If he doesn't make it to the Presidency this year, they can't keep the image burnished enough to sell him for Prsident in the future.
His lost Ill. Senate records may not become an issue this year, but they sure would in a future race. Course by then his US Senate records will help sink him.
-
Salon's Bias
[Read the article: The GOP attack plan for Hillary Clinton]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Salon is a liberal .com. I have seen several posts which claim that Salon is biased toward Hillary Clinton and against Barack Obama. Joan Walsh's columns are mentioned as proof.
As a former elected official and conservative southern populist, I am very quick to notice media bias. And I do not see any deliberately pro-Hillary Clinton stories in Salon. On the contrary, like the remainder of the media, Salon has gone overboard to be "fair" to Barack Obama and his campaign.
There are exceptions, but the pro-Obama posters are the most vociferous "attack dogs" in this Presidential Campaign as a group, and among the most venomous and biased individuals I have read anywhere on the web, about any subject. Many of their posts are among the least objective, and "true believers" statements to be found anywhere.
Their faith seems to be based primarily on oratory, but in fact, among the most effective orators and monsters of the 20th century were Vladimir Lenin and Adolph Hitler. Image is not reality, and to take image at face value has sometimes had monstrous consequences.
Everyone has their own idea as to what "change" means in the country. Chances are very good that the moment Obama begins to define what he means by "change", voters will abandon him in droves. That is why he is not about to tell us. We will have to wait until he is elected to discover Obama's real agenda. And that might be too late, as it was in Germany under Hitler and most assuredly Russia under Lenin.
-
reply to Fester
[Read the article: The GOP attack plan for Hillary Clinton]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Unlce Fester, my post entitled "Salon Bias" did not mention Mein Kampf nor The Audacity of Hope, a title Obama took from one of Reverend Wright's sermons, I think. I mentioned "oratory", which is speeches.
I think we might learn more about the real Barack Obama from a study of Saul Alinsky, including his writings, than from Obama's speeches. Alinsky promoted joining a socialistic agenda with liberal religious institutions to "change" society: like the Obama/Wright relationship and Wright's church.
-
Tom Payne
[Read the article: The GOP attack plan for Hillary Clinton]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thanks for your post regarding my two earlier posts. It's not wise to argue with someone who doesn't know what they are talking about, but I will make a brief exception in this case to clear up a few points.
First, I'm not just a white southern populist, I'm a conservative white southern populist. I have a degree in History and english, and with more than 300 years of Southern Heritage in my background, I do love my region, with all its virtues and faults. As a matter of fact, I find a lot to admire in Huey Long, particularly his fight against Standard Oil and the Rockefeller family. Big Government and Big Business are both bad, us conservative populists feel.
I do not believe Barack Obama is merely a liberal in the great Western Liberal Tradition. I think Obama is a marxist, and that he embraces the tenets of Chairman Mao's Cultural Revolution and its chief mechanism--political correctness. He's not a communist any more than are his lefty trust-baby supporters: they love wealth way too much.
As for the references to Hitler and Lenin, they spring from the endless mantra of Obama's supporters that he makes great speeches. To which I reply, that is no reason to support Obama. Lenin and Hitler were among the most effective orators of the last century, and among mankind's greatest monsters. Lenin took over a country which covers what, 9 time zones, with 121 supporters: he did it with speeches, threats, intimidation, determination and organization, and a lot of uninformed emotional "hope" on the part of a gullible populace. The Bolsheviks took over Russia at a time when the country was engaged in a disastrous, unpopular war, there was widespread disillusionment with the existing government and society, and people yearned for--"change". I don't think my reference was off the mark at all.
The three remaining Presidential candidates are perhaps the worst crop ever, but the best of the three evils is undoubtedly Hillary Clinton. McCain is the last survivor in high places of the WWII-Cold War mentality. And Barack Obama is decidedly not the candidate his well-polished image presents to the world. Nor was Lenin's and Hitler's.