Letters to the Editor
juneausmog
Published Letters: 223 Editor's Choice: 10
-
@ BadgerBlue
[Read the article: The politics of not nice]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Those were very interesting points. I would further them by pointing out that the Clinton era was in fact, representative of a broad coalition. Interestingly enough, the Clinton's get none of the credit for the results of triangulation and for achieving it, but all the discredit for "compromising" while triangulating.
It's ironic to me that Obama has managed thus far, to capitalize on the promise of this same result, but without the vitriolic partisanship (yet).
I would offer as evidence of this, Clinton's high approval ratings throughout his presidency even while being impeached and investigated. If Americans truly thought his policies and presidency repugnant, his approval ratings would have reflected that.
No, the Clinton's broad coalition achievement was glossed over by a crowd of incredibly immature and angry partisan republicans. The current smattering of republicans and independents, as well as at least 1/3 of democrats appeal to this message of a coalition and the hope is that the same small group of republicans with arrested development, won't try and ruin it for us this time. I think they see the likelihood of this reality occurring with Hillary more, part of the reason why they shy away from her.
The fact is however, that these republicans won't stop and it will cycle over again. Glenn Greenwald points this inevitability out, and they are sharpening their knives.
So the real challenge is, can we really shut these guys up for once? I think the problem is a bigger one than we are acknowledging. The dilemma is: Knowing that they [republicans] will act in an inevitable way no matter what, do we thumb our noses at the republicans (Hillary), or reach out to them (Obama)?
I think Obama's message is a red-herring to fool people into thinking that he will totally stop this paradigm in its tracks. We will have a big koom-by-ya moment, then it will begin again. Hillary doesn't bother me because I think she is totally capable of creating a coalition among most centrist issues, while taking strong, progressive and important positions on specific agendas, like changing healthcare and creating a new social contract that helps middle class Americans deal with their insecurities.
In the meantime, my current answer to the above dilemma lies in my mood: screw 'em. If Independents and left-leaning republicans cannot draw contrasts between any progressive candidate (Obama/Hillary/Edwards) and the republican party at this point, than we have a deeper disease than we think.
So in my mind, Obama and Hillary will produce similar results as president. I think Edwards would provide the most contrasting approach (and perhaps most divisive in the end).
p.s.
NAFTA was a Bush Sr. treaty that the congress approved of...Clinton inherited it and amended it as much as he could before signing it.
-
@ Alan Lloyd
[Read the article: The politics of not nice]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]take off your sensi pants.
Are you outraged of the quick typing? Oops, so sorry.
So now the snark comes out because of an accidental discourtesy.
It seems I cannot offer my opinion without you requiring to be the right one. Who cares. It's both our opinions. You're not right. But you are overly-sensitive.
Get over yourself.
-
Let's get even more progressive here
[Read the article: Iowa in the rear-view mirror]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Speaking of the establishment, let's look at Iowa and New Hampshire. Every presidential election cycle, they get the longest and hardest look at the candidates and are decisive in a frontrunner's "Mo".
Why can't they share the limelight? Living in Washington, I never get to see campaigns here on that level. But I'd like to get the chance to experience what they get to.
It's ironic that they represent the "status quo" and won't ever give up their "first" voting position. What about breaking up this monopoly, eh?
-
@ A. Lloyd
[Read the article: The politics of not nice]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It was a typo, Alan. Think about 'Frank Lloyd' from 'Frank Lloyd Wright' flashed in my mind and I quickly typed it. The 'post a letter' form doesn't allow you to reference back to the letters posted. What do you think 'Frank' means, some kind of code word for asshole? Wow, you really know how to read between the lines.
You spend the entirety of your opening and closing arguments whining about the accidental discourtesy. You act like a stomped on your foot. You don't know me. You don't know my intentions. I haven't shown you that I disrespected your opinion or condescended to it. But you "ass"ume that you know what I meant by typing "Frank" instead of Alan. Idiotic. A typo brought out your true colors, and your claws. What a find you are.
I think "A" Lloyd stands for more than just Alan. And how ironic this all happened under the blog "The politics of not nice" Thanks for proving it so explicitly!