Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 361 Editor's Choice: 12
-
tristero and rollotomasi
[Read the article: Chris Matthews is right ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]First, writing about a Gail Collins oped tristero picks up one of Glenn's themes:
when she started answering questions, she got very Hillary — talking about carbon neutrality and H.M.O. payments and procurement reform, ticking off her five-point plans and three-part explanations. The large crowd, which had been standing in a high school gym for nearly two hours before she arrived, seemed to enjoy it. Her bond with the people isn’t a passionate one, but when it works, it’s a genuine connection that starts with the belief that she will work really, really hard on their behalf.
Apparently, to Collins, the reason Clinton won had very little to do with the fact she's willing to listen to voters. Or that she knows what she's talking about on a myriad of issues, any one of which is far beyond the capability of Collins' pea brain to master. Or that voters actually do care about these issues and care that someone has thought them through and can be articulate and organized in discussing them (flashback: "Is our children learning?" Oh such a charming manly codpiece of a man!). Or that voters weighed what Clinton proposed and concluded they were pretty good ideas, and that she made a better case than her rivals.
It is simply incomprehensible to the punditocracy that people who show up at candidate events are actually interested in policy questions, and hang on the words of even the wonkiest presentation.
rollotomasi:
The best analysis I've seen of how the polls could have been so wrong is Chris Bowers:
http://openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3156
He, eschewing catastrophe theory, presents all the not media backlash reasons. I still think that there was such a backlash, if only because I've found myself so often angrily defending Clinton from what i see as unfair treatment. She's my third to last choice, but that doesn't mean that the media should be systematically whacking her (and ignoring Edwards).
-
Thanks for watching the debates
[Read the article: The grave Iranian threat to world peace]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So I don't have to. They make my teeth hurt.
I have been wondering whether anybody would point out that we are supposed to believe that America was threatened by 5 speedboats.
Once again, Ron Paul to the rescue.
-
I am curious
[Read the article: The Kucinich court decision and "judicial activism"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]About whether these public airways rules apply to cable stations, or networks. The underlying reason for the public airways rule applying to broadcast is that spectrum is both scarce and a commons. With essentially unlimited capacity to provide additional transmissions, the need on a cable network would not seem as compelling. Kucinich could, in principle, obtain time, or an entire channel, on Nevada cable networks. He cannot do so on some unused bit of spectrum.
-
Wrong Comeback
[Read the article: McCain owns the Iraq war -- for better or worse]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Ernest Hemingway should have said: "Yeah, and what's up with occupying Japan? That war is, like, over. And China is, like, one of our biggest trading partners and into us for some real money. Why isn't Ron Paul right? Rather than being an argument for permanently occupying Iraq, shouldn't we be discussing why we are permenently occupying an ally in a region where there are no military threats to speak of? And, in other news, what's up with occupying Germany? The wall came down in 1989, dude. Poland's in the EC and Russia is major player in world commodity markets. We won the Cold War. Communism is dead. Can we demobilize now?"
Oh, and by the way, Juan will be appearing on my Second Life interview program on January 31st, 6pm Pacific. Link with more info on my signature.
-
Tim Brown
[Read the article: McCain owns the Iraq war -- for better or worse]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There are two problems with the more bloodshed if the US leaves argument. The first is that the ethnic cleansing and separation has proceeded apace. The three or four sides have largely separated themselves out. There might be a Sunni uprising against an Iranian proxy government, but the Sadrists wouldn't want that Iranian proxy government. We do know that when the British pulled out that there wasn't an enormous uprising. And I happen to believe that the reason there has been a reduction in violence is because the US is doing fewer patrols.
IOW, the US is the source of the violence, as one would expect in most countries. Resistance to a foreign invader doesn't seem all that odd to me.
The second problem is that this argument doesn't leave space for things getting any better. The US presence (and the escalation) has not in least had the effect of the Iraqis, as you say, getting their shit together. The US is not serving as a source for unity, but is enabling the continuation of a governmentless collection of factions. Now this may be intentional, as the goal of the invasion was permanent occupation and the placement of the main US bases in the middle east in Iraq under US control.
-
Pick up the phone
[Read the article: CNN's John King responds]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]That's what struck me. Just imagine.
You pick up the phone. You call CNN and ask to speak to John King about a blog post you're working on. First off, he's not gonna take your call.
And then, what are you supposed to ask him? "Why are you a mindless shill?" "Did you ask the candidate stuff that was really compelling and important?" "Why did you run drivel?"
Journalism is apparently calling people up on the phone, and then reporting that the people aren't available for comment.
-
I Wish Kagrox Was Here
[Read the article: Lawbreaking telecoms still conniving to obtain immunity from Congress]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I may not be recalling this correctly, or I may not have understood it at the time, but I thought that Dodd had some maneuver that didn't allow Reid to apply a 60 vote majority to each amendment--that the non-filibuster filibuster rule is one that has to hold without objection, amendment by amendment.
Does anyone remember what I am talking about?