Letters to the Editor
Holly McLachlan
Published Letters: 559 Editor's Choice: 3
-
@Michael Harold, regarding the Administration's precious dyed blondes
[Read the article: The political fringe]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There really isn't anything left for them to do but take up the gauntlet at this point. The Administration's recent tactic of hiding behind delicate-looking 'ladies' should be countered with a polite, swift, total smackdown.
Not everyone thinks this tactic would work, perhaps in part because the Democratic leadership has made it clear that they don't have the stomach for hardball. Digby citing Lithwick:
I wouldn't assume that Miers will respond as one would assume she would. I would guess that she "caves" and comes forth, only to stonewall as Taylor did. If they dismiss her for being unresponsive, as Lithwick suggests above, they will look incoherent and churlish for having forced her to appear. (The harried blond Goodling/Taylor sweetheart routine won't play with Harriet.) See how this works? Every play has a different rule.
I don't pretend to have the answers. These guys are almost as good at advancing their heinous goals from the minority as they are from their majority.
Her take on this is less optimistic. The Senate is somewhat hampered by its lack of women; the rather deep-voiced Feinstein is almost as stymied by these Paulines in Peril as the men are. If they had a few younger women to tap for questioning in the show hearings they'd fair better. And the show hearings are necessary; they have to build a case in the court of public opinion before they can talk seriously about impeachment. At times, Leahy seems like the only top man who understands the nature of their game. Feinstein probably does as well, but she is quite opaque, and probably won't take any 'risks' until she's fairly certain of success.
Their conduct, as recorded on CSPAN last night, certainly does illustrate Glenn's thesis in today's post -- the Congressional majority is waaay behind the People on the issue of Executive overreach. -
It's too much fun to let go of....
[Read the article: Tucker Carlson, stalwart defender of sexual privacy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The biggest problem most commenters have with the Vitter scandal is the sheer fun of it. I know I let out an unladylike howl when I first read about his 'outing'. But there is a reason more important than Schadenfreude to discuss his troubles. He's made a name for himself as a politician off of his putative high morals. Now he appears to be... yet another kinky Neo-Dixiecrat getting some on the side. So, how did his misconduct open him up to blackmail? He didn't just break marriage vows and the law, when he donned a diaper he made himself politically vulnerable. Now the citizens of Louisiana need to take a good look at his voting record, the bills he sponsored, and see which ones were diametrically opposed to any possible interests of ours. Then we need to figure out why he might have sponsored/co-authored/voted for them. We'll never find out of course ...but only a sweet fool wouldn't think about this now.
Why are people surprised that these Jeezus freak fundamentalist f'wits are constantly being revealed as whoremongering hypocrites? -- sunspot
Vitter is Catholic.
-
Winnow out the truth
[Read the article: Little outbursts of journalism -- what causes them?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...changing our public discourse is a slow, grinding, difficult process. [...]Each individual change is usually so slight as to be imperceptible, but aggregated, those changes can be substantial. The real success of blogs comes not from single, easily identifiable spectacular achievements [...], but rather, by the gradual re-shaping of the dominant political narratives, by changing how political and cultural issues are discussed, by influencing [...] how the media conducts itself in covering our political process.
Yes. Thank you.
With time and effort their false and glittering generalities will blow away like micaceous sand in a windstorm. If you just keep throwing their words up into the air, and let them fall back to Earth in the fine, clear sunshine.
-
casual_oldtexan is right....
[Read the article: Still more White House secrecy -- this time in the Tillman investigation]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]... Congressional Democrats have their eyes firmly fixed on the '08 election--particularly on the senate races. Yes, they want a democratic president, but they want a real, operational majority in the senate just as badly. And they rightly see they have a good chance to get it--as you mentioned.
[...] They are determined not to give the republicans and their media anything that might hurt the upcoming election.
Impeachment, like the Iraq funding bill, is something they fear the Republican noise machine would use. They fear the media could spin up enough hype on an impeachment that it could hurt Dem. chances.-- casual_observerI think, yes. The Democratic leadership is fully aware that they are at the mercy of an anti-Democrat, warmongering PR machine that operates fairly independently of the Republican Party, but which supports them at present. They've survived politically by toeing a moderately conservative line, are probably individually comfortable with much of the status quo, and they fear taking a stand. It's not that they 'disrespect' the Constitution, it's that they would need to feel very secure in order to support it. (Also they'd need to feel the electorate breathing down their necks on the matter. They clearly don't.)
-
no real disagreement
[Read the article: Still more White House secrecy -- this time in the Tillman investigation]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...[The Congress's] entire job is to run government according to a blueprint which is the constitution. They have sworn an oath to uphold and defend the constitution against foreign or domestic threats. Nowhere in the oath does it say "unless I don't feel very secure in doing so".-- casual_observer
I did not mean to imply great disagreement with your assessment. But, the Congress doesn't seem to be any much worse than they were in the past with regard to the Constitution. The problem of government veering away from its foundational principles goes back long before the Bush administration; they're just the ones taking advantage of that drift.
I am a little surprised at how "prudent" the Senators seem, at least when seen questioning stonewalling Administration officials on CSPAN. I remember in times past when they exuded unseemly hubris. Now, some look as cleverly cautious as royal ministers in the court of Henry VIII. They seem alert to threats in regards to their prerogatives -- but they aren't 'going Doberman' on the Administration.It's actually been interesting to watch this past ~10 days.