Letters to the Editor
BernieO
Published Letters: 33 Editor's Choice: 3
-
Good question, Joe
[Read the article: Will the press get over its love for McCain?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]He is not saying that McCain necessarily did anything sleazy, just that this is the kind of thing that the media keeps houndng Democrats about. The recent complaining about Clinton's foundation is a case in point. As Josh Marshall points out, the elder Bush has been doing the same thing, with no scrutiny. Heck, even when he took money from Sun Myung Moon and helped legitimize him in South America and the media looked the other way.
I do wonder, though, what the media will do if Obama goes up against McCain. Right now they are so enamored of him they may have a problem choosing who they love more. On the other hand, Obama is proposing things that are threatening to corporations, so my guess is he would most likely get the tougher treatment.
If this happens and Democrats passively stand by as they have in the past, we will have only ourselves to blame. It is clear that all the protests over the sexism of MSNBC's coverage of Hilary had an effect. Democrats need to keep the pressure on if they want to see their candidates be treated more fairly.
-
Don't be so hopeless
[Read the article: Campaign wrap]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This is the first time I feel that the conditions are right to really reform health care. A lot of people supported reform in the nineties, but not nearly as many as now. The costs are so out of control people are frightened that they will either lose coverage or be told they are not covered for specific illnesses. More importantly, businesses are fed up with the spiraling costs and want a solution, as do doctors. And the Republican party is fractured and weakened. If the public gets behind reform and refuses to be bamboozled by these Harry and Louise type scare tactics, we will get it done. But that means we all have to take the time to call our representatives, email, write to our newspaper and most importantly pressure the media if they try to undermine the efforts.
While it is true that the final plan won't look like the one proposed, Obama has already conceded a big point by not having a mandate. Why start out by already having compromised to please your opponents?
-
Don't you mean the LATEST crash in Republican economics??
[Read the article: The crash in Republican economics ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]When are Democrats going to make it clear to the public that our problems are the direct result of the Ayn Rand/Milton Friedman radical individualism that was popularized by the avuncular Ronald Reagan? Both times we have allowed Republicans to run our economy with their free market fundamentalism we have suffered these destablilizing crashes in which the perpetrators make out like bandits while the rest of us pay the tab? All these crises - the S&L debacle, Enron, Long Term Capital Management and now the mortgage meltdown - were the result of the ideology of allowing the markets free rein with little to no oversight or regulation. Both in the 80's and again under Bush Republican economic policies have led to financial meltdowns, ballooning deficits, widening gaps between rich and poor, and world-wide loss of credibility. Since Phil Gramm is McCain's chief economic advisor, we can expect more of the same from him.
Democrats need to tell the public loudly and repeatedly that each time Republicans have been allowed to implement their extremist economic ideology it has been a disaster for average Americans. It is time to drive a stake through the heart of Reagonomics once and for all.
-
Blame Republicans
[Read the article: Work sucks? Blame her!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The prioritization of profits as the ultimate good coupled with the disempowering of unions has allowed corporate American to demand more and more from workers while paying less and less to all but upper management. This is the legacy of the sainted Ronald Reagan.
-
The Republicans will viciously attack either one
[Read the article: The GOP attack plan for Hillary Clinton]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Whoever is the candidate it is a certainty that the Republican slime machine will trash them without mercy - or honesty. The real question is whether Democrats - both leaders and rank and file - will wring their hands and get the vapors as they sit on the sidelines wondering why the candidate is not doing more to defend him/herself. If this happens yet again, we can look forward to four more years.
-
This is not a silly question
[Read the article: Opus]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I have pointed out to many people that Obama is a white man with a black father in that he is not only half white, he was raised by a white family and did not know his father. That he is culturally white was the reason that many talked about whether he is black enough.
I think this is important to understanding Obama. I believe that it explains his ties to Wright's church. In order for him to begin his political career he needed to establish a base in the black community and this large influential church helped give him credibility with the community. (Why he did not distance himself after he was successful and was planning to run for national office, culminating in the presidency is a different issue.)
I am not saying this as a criticism of Obama. Whether this is a plus or minus depends on where you stand.
-
You are wrong about the Republican strategy
[Read the article: GOP's not-so-secret weapon fails]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]They are using this in order to weaken the nominee in the general election. This gives them a head start in framing the Dem. nominee, a very effective strategy.
-
What Obama actually said
[Read the article: Big weekend news]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The media is ignoring what Obama actually said when he resigned from the church. He defended it and said he was resigning to protect the church from scrutiny, not because he had a problem with its views. He also said that the church is not anti-white or anti-American. He clearly did this only for political reasons.