Letters to the Editor
L.W.M.
Published Letters: 6043 Editor's Choice: 5
-
I stopped liking Republicans...
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]When they stopped being like Pete McCloskey...
"Congressmen are like diapers: You need to change ’em often, and for the same reason."
You thought that was Robin Williams?
Pete McCloskey uses the same opening gambit as he marches into a bar, a hair salon, and a half dozen other businesses in downtown Lodi, buttonholing voters in his long-shot bid to unseat incumbent Richard Pombo, the GOP powerhouse who represents the central valley and parts of Alameda and Santa Clara Counties.
This is not your typical Republican primary campaign.
McCloskey is a pro-choice, pro-environment, troops-out-of-Iraq, old-style moderate. In many ways he's more progressive than a lot of the people who currently run the Democratic Party.
At 78, McCloskey, who once represented Portola Valley, in San Mateo County, in Congress, is one of the last representatives of an increasingly scarce breed: the liberal Republican. His wing of the GOP, which once played a key role in American politics, has increasingly fallen victim to the religious right and the scorched-earth tactics of former Congressional leader Tom "the Hammer" Delay.
Pombo is the embodiment of the latter legacy. He's one of the most socially conservative, environmentally challenged, global warming–skeptical, pro–Alaska oil-drilling, antichoice, and antigay representatives in the country. He has also been tagged as one of the nation’s 13 least ethical Congress members by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, DC. He possesses a remarkably low 7 percent rating from the American Civil Liberties Union and is a noted associate of both Delay and Jack Abramoff. He’s even given Delay's legal defense fund $5,000 (see "Follow the Money," page 17).
It's hard to believe Pombo represents any part of the Bay Area. But his oddly gerrymandered 11th District is a safe Republican seat — and the only way to beat him, McCloskey says, is in a Republican primary.
"This is a battle for the soul of the Republican party," McCloskey says from a seat in his red, white, and blue Winnebago as we tear up and down Highway 99 through dark gray rain showers, bright green fields, and the muted beiges and browns of recently constructed subdivisions. "The basic reason I am running is to try and restore a reputation for honesty in the Republican Party in Congress. If I can't win on that issue, I don't deserve to win..."
http://www.sfbg.com/printable_entry.php?entry_id=427
He's still a Republican but his own party wouldn't nominate him and he endorsed the Democrat who defeated Pombo, so I'm not so sure who the dying breed is... I'd say Shooter and DeLay and Pombo. McCloskey's not dead yet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_McCloskey
-
Ignoring Shooter's Conspiracy Theories
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thersites... cross-posted at Eschaton
http://whiskeyfire.typepad.com/whiskey_fire/2007/04/bummerings_from.html
Matt Yglesias notes that Jonah Goldberg is complaining of "Goldberg Derangement Syndrome." This is a similar complaint to that of his fellow NROer Cliff May, who recently wrote:
I enjoy a good debate as much as the next guy but, increasingly, the next guy doesn’t want to argue — he wants to demonize me. He doesn’t want to win the debate; he wants to shut it down.
Whether the topic is global warming or Saddam Hussein’s links to terrorists, daring to contradict the “consensus” brings hoots and hollers and worse.
If the question is, "how come the left blogosphere is so reflexively derisive whenever they encounter an argument from people like Goldberg and May," I think that May actually puts his finger on exactly why this is so:
It's because so many conservatives want to argue things like global warming is fake and that there were significant ties between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.
These aren't arguments: they're conspiracy theories (as is another foundational conservative myth, that the media has a partisan liberal bias). They have the same basis in fact as the notion that "9/11 was an inside job." And so, consequently, such "arguments" are treated as conspiracy theories deserve to be treated: with derision and scorn. Taking them seriously only gives them and those who make them an undeserved and in fact dangerous legitimacy.
You just can't ignore Holocaust Deniers, or Nazis, or Fascists or the current GOP... Sometimes you must shout them down, and shut them down, even little nobodys like Shooter. Others can ignore them and go after the bigger targets, but they are all targets, and like an infection, if you don't get it all, it just comes back stronger, and resistant to treatment.
Karen... I don't care if you think she's stupid (I don't like her either) but I'm really sick and tired of the "ho" comments. They are unnecessary. If you can't make your point in some other fashion, perhaps it is also unnecessary.
That is unfortunate, but please try to ignore that and don't let it prevent you from reading Glenn's posts. That's what you are here for and most of the commenters don't do that. It's the first amendment, it doesn't guarantee you won't be offended. I don't want to jail Shooter or prevent him from climbing on a soapbox and spewing his nonsense any more than I want to prevent some fool from saying "Ho". I do think Shooter deserves all the derision and scorn that can be heaped upon him. Same for most of the GOP. The guy who says "ho" is never going to get elected to office. The guys spewing all the crap Shooter does did get elected, and look where we are now. Priorities.