Letters to the Editor
ljwalker53
Published Letters: 559 Editor's Choice: 9
-
Memo to Joe Conason: Over the Top
[Read the article: Geraldine Ferraro still needs to apologize]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This commentary would be funny if it weren't so pathetic and didn't have a Grand Canyon-wide double standard. It is, rather, a real "tribute" to the far left sensibilities in the Democratic Party: "Apologize or Shut Up." Nice.
If Conason would pull his head out of the clouds of the airy ethernet zone where he lives, he might accept some responsibility for his own candidate's "stealth" racial tactics and request either apologies or a toning-down of the rhetoric.
To wit:
Accusing Sen. Hillary Clinton of being racist for suggesting that LBJ actually passed the Civil Rights Act. Instead of calling for reason and actually reading the comments, it gets pushed by Obama's campaign as some sort of racist plot against Obama.
Accusing Bill Clinton of racism in his "fairy tale" comments. Once again, reason is nowhere to be found. Instead, the comment is cited as another example of how "racist" Bill Clinton is.
Where was the reason against Obama campaign officials who pushed the "Bradley Effect" as the reason Sen. Obama lost the New Hampshire primary?
Allowing Obama advertisements to run in Nevada that pronounce (in Spanish, no less!) that Hillary Clinton "doesn't respect our people" [Latinos]. Where were or are your sensibilities on this?
Then we have the "stealth" racist words of Obama's speech about being considered for the No. 2 spot on the ticket: "the Okey-doke" and "hoodwinked".
And as long as we're on the subject of outrageous commentary, how about expressing the same sense of moral outrage about Rev. Jeremiah Wright's scathing homophobic commentary, delivered some time ago? Or his scathing indictment of the United States of America? Or his ugly comments directed at Hillary Clinton?
Finally, the lowball tactic of trying to tie Geraldine Ferraro's comments to her legislative record begs for reason and sanity.
Ferraro's three terms in Congress produced little in the way of legislation -- again unlike Obama, whose single term in the Senate has seen him mark several milestones, in particular a landmark ethics reform package.
However, since Conason wants to tie legislative accomplishments to words and actions, perhaps he should read what Sen. Obama's U.S. Senate peers think about the Illinois Senator's "milestones".
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/us/politics/09obama.html?pagewanted=1&th&emc=th
I have always thought (and been proved accurate about 85 percent of the time) that knee-jerk liberals are exactly that: knee-jerk liberals who cannot see beyond their own definition of prejudice. Conason is clearly no exception.
-
@ weeping for brunnhilde: False Outrage and Double Standards
[Read the article: Geraldine Ferraro still needs to apologize]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"It's Ferraro's defiance."
First, I'm going to point out that I made clear in another post on Salon what I thought about her comments, although I'm not sure why I need to apologize for anything. Still, here is what I said yesterday:
"It was a truly "Ferraro moment" IMO. She got herself into some hot water in 1984, too, for her outspokenness. In some ways, she is like the Rev. Al Sharpton -- an outspoken, highly critical, opinionated, in-your-face New Yorker: you don't always agree with what they say or how they say it, but you know what you're getting...
Now, onto why Conason demanding an apology from Ferraro is wrong on at least two profound levels.
1] False moral outrage. This reeks to me more "Hillary hating" than a true "moral outrage" about what Ferraro said.
2] Blatant double standards. In concert with my first point, Conason (and others) cannot possibly be serious in requesting an "apology" from ONE candidate's supporters/advisors if they do not also request apologies from supporters/advisors of the OTHER candidate. That is, if they are at all serious about the problems of racism, sexism, homophobia, ageism, etc.
As relevant cases in point, I ask this:
-- Where is the "moral outrage" against Obama's own campaign advisors/staff for their racism, sexism, homophobia? Let's start with David Axelrod. Then, let's move down the list to Rev. Al Sharpton (calling it the "Bradley Effect" that was responsible for Obama's loss in New Hampshire), Rep. Jesse L. Jackson, Jr. (calling Black superdelegates who support Hillary Clinton "Jim Crows"), and Rev. Jeremiah Wright (for his blatant homophobic comments, and his blatantly hostile anti-U.S. comments, and his hostile words toward Hillary Clinton)?.
This is what I mean by Conason's (and others') false moral outrage and the application of outrageous double standards!
-
@ Traduced!
[Read the article: Geraldine Ferraro still needs to apologize]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]And I was one of them. But the false moral outrage expressed by Joe Conason (and others) serves as cheap thrills for those whose main goal in life these days is "hating Hillary." It's also an easy (and slimy) way out of honest discussion about racism, sexism, ageism, homophobia.
-
@ tom payne: Napoleanic And Stubby
[Read the article: Geraldine Ferraro still needs to apologize]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]That's my guess!
You cannot have a conversation on these boards without insulting women; thus my headline.
If you need a bigger clue: Nothing you say in support of Barack Obama is given an ounce of credibility, precisely because you act like a scumbag when it comes to women.
Once again, I call YOU on your behavior and words on these boards.