Letters to the Editor
Akron Mike
Published Letters: 144 Editor's Choice: 3
-
Someone may have already pointed this out ...
[Read the article: The dumbing down of the GOP]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]... but I'd argue that the GOP began embracing "anti-intellectualism" in their candidates with the advent of the Great Communicator. Reagan was smarter (at least to some degree) than we left-leaning types would care to admit, but he also made oblivousness, or at best, generalization into political art form.
That said, I don't think the Republican party is completely devoid of deep thinkers. As an MOR liberal, I might not care for Newt Gingrich, but I don't doubt the guy's intellectual vigor. Well, except when he writes his crappy novels.
-
@sonofloud
[Read the article: The dumbing down of the GOP]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Actually I think there are a few liberals who weren't too happy with the "Gotcha, Racism!" tactics the Obama campaign deployed against the Clintons. In fact as someone whose affiliation with the Democratic party is founded upon its pro-union/blue collar support past, I'm willing to bet such a thing did not help him with the white working class vote in the Rustbelt, many of whom live in racially-mixed, if not racially-charged neighborhoods, and who have probably had to deal with Affirmative Action policies as an actuality more than the rest of us.
That said, it is after all politics, and for many of us the Dem vs. Republican choice becomes a "lesser of two evils" one. Personally, I like Obama as a politican, but I never drank the Kool-Aid nor saw him as any sort of liberal savior, and though you're right to point to his lack of experience, I think you're wrong to suggest it's akin to Palin's. The man's been on the national scene for four years now; Palin's been on it for two months. Big difference. And though I'm not one to presume what beats in her heart, or for that matter guess her IQ score, I think she has proven to be a bit out of her league and in need of more seasoning.
Anyway, despite Salon's high school-like fixation on her, I always thought this election would come down to a referendum on Bush and the current state of the economy. Nothing, so far, has dissuaded me of that opinion.
-
@Confuscious
[Read the article: Wall Street shudders, again]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Excellent post. I tend to think most of the deep-seated stuff began in the 70's when management side-stepped the unions by moving jobs south or overseas, and the power brokers, not to say a good portion of the gullible American pubic, put their eggs all in the consumer's basket over the worker's (not to mention management's over the union's). Thus, it became more important that someone could buy a $20 piece of crap electronics device at Wal-Mart than that same someone was making a decent wage at the same store. It's also interesting to note that this "cheap labor" principle as applied in the recent IT outsourcing boom has already begun to bite the American economy in its ass. It's not for nothing that countries like China and India are now consuming oil, and thus driving up gas prices, at the rate of Americans, nor the fact that China has become an economic superpower.
But other than pushing for worker's rights abroad and applying some sort of tarriff/protectionism policies, what can be done? The cruelly funny thing is that management won the war against the unions by portraying guys like Jimmy Hoffa and his mob buddies as guys high on the take. That they were, and some of them even had rackateering charges to prove it (not to mention violent pasts), but I believe history has shown that those atop the unions were absolute pikers in the graft department compared to our current crop of speculators, traders, CEOs, politicans and lobbyists.
Anyway, kudos to Mr. Leonard for writing an article that wasn't more of the same People magazine-like obsession with Sarah Palin. Let's keep our eyes on the ball, folks.
-
@big paulie
[Read the article: Red Sox vs. Rays in ALCS]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Normally, I'd agree with you -- not a big fan of the second to third sacrifice unless its potentially the last inning and the team doing it is the home team (last at bats). That said, the batter who laid down the sacrifice (kendrick or hendrick?) had been woefully overmatched all series long. There was a very good chance he was not going to advance the runner by swinging away, let alone get a hit and start a multi-run rally.
What I did question was the squeeze. The infield was drawn way in, it was a 2-0 count and the pitcher had looked wild, and even if the batter swings away and makes an out, chances are the runner on the third won't be doubled up so you'll have one more shot -- and I want to say Figgins was due up next, who'd hit reasonably well in the series. What's more -- hindsight being what it is -- the missed squeeze was clearly ball 3 and not even close; hence, i'm almost sure the batter would have been sitting on a 3-0 count, and a walk wouldn't have seemed far-fetched with better hitters due up.
-
@anandasub ...
[Read the article: A debate for sobering times]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Biden has been taking on McCain in a very strong way everyday while campainging largely in the Rustbelt and Applachian states. Unfortunately, he's the one non-star of the four-ring circus, and thus not getting much national press. But given how Obama struggled in such states in the primary season, Biden's under-the-radar attacks (and reassurances about Obama) might be having a more positive effect than any "grabbing the headlines" approach that the McCain campaign is feeding Palin.