Letters to the Editor
Tone in DC
Published Letters: 135
-
Interesting, Sitka
[Read the article: Obama can't close the deal ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"According to NPR and other sources, some 160,000 Republicans changed their voter registration to Democrat in order to vote in the closed Pennsylvania primary.
While I am certain some of those individuals sincerely changed parties, many likely did so to alter the outcome of the election (who can forget Rush Limbaugh encouraging his listeners to support Clinton in Texas).
Though I do not know if it is possible to determine how the majority of these 160,000 voted, we should nonetheless keep in mind that Clinton, according to the unofficial results at the Pennsylvania Department of State page, won by 193,701 votes.
If we assume (and I believe it is a safe assumption), the majority of these Republicans (and that is what they still are despite their current registration status) voted for Clinton, then her margin of victory among true Democrats in Pennsylvania is much smaller than the election results indicate.
-- sitka0230
______________________________________________________________
Thanks for pointing this out. I found this at the NPR web site:
"Voter turnout was high throughout the day. The primary was open only to Democrats. About 10 percent of voters changed their party affiliation to participate, according to the exit poll data. About half of those who had switched had been registered Republicans, while the remainder had not been affiliated with either party."
NPR has been known to make a mistake now and again. Still, ten precent would be approximately 800,000 voters state-wide. And, as much as I despise Rush Limburger, he has the most popular radio show in the entire country. Maybe his dittoheads played a significant part in Pennsylvania.
-
Stacy in DC
[Read the article: Obama can't close the deal ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Why I can't back Obama
Why haven't I moved over to Obama's side? It's simple. I have no idea what he represents aside from "Change". It's a default position when you have a lot to whine about with no proposal on what you intend to do about it. I don't bother to complain about what's going on at my job or in my personal life unless I have a specific strategy to solve the problem because that will just make me a whiner. I see Obama as a whiner.
I'm much less supportive of Clinton than I was at the beginning of her campaign. She's made far too many mistakes. That does nothing to improve Obama's position, in my mind. He remains where he was before. Wanting a "change" from a Bush-Clinton-Bush may make sense but at least I know that I preferred the Clinton phase of that sequence and I know what Clinton's positions are on many of the issues that concern me and how she plans to address them. I see the platform of "change" as a faith based campaign, without the god. I'm supposed to assume that whatever changes are made will be good without knowing what, specifically, those changes are and how Obama thinks he'll manage to get those changes through the political process. Sorry, but that's too much of a risk for me. Without knowing what those changes are and being able to consider the likelihood that those changes will actually make it through, I'm not willing to rely on a hopes and dreams based plan. Unless and until Obama starts focusing on concrete policies and detailed plans, my attitude wont "change".
-- StacyInDC
___________________________________________________________
Stacy, his plans for fixing the disaster that Bush will leave the next president are on his website (www.barackobama.com). Many people on this site and elsewhere have made the same "where's the beef" point that you do. He does have some ideas regarding policy, not just vague platitudes.
-
Aaron Brown impression
[Read the article: Interview with Aaron Brown on NYT "military analyst" story]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Glenn:
When Amy Goodman talked to Brown before, his responses to her pointed questions contained more snark than anything else. I'm glad that he was more businesslike today. That he was better than other M$M folks in 2003 is indeed damning with faint praise, in my opinion.
"Deadly dull", indeed. Maybe CNN should broadcast roller derby or arena football if exciting programming is his deciding factor regarding who and what is discussed.
-
Question for Quickstrategy (or anyone else who might know)
[Read the article: Interview with Aaron Brown on NYT "military analyst" story]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"...USAF recently launched a Cyber Command, which is a big deal for them. The mission has to do with preventing hack-attacks from overseas; given their current struggles to define their mission and budget justifications (a story going back to 1991), and their lack of involvement in NSA looking in everyone's orifices, I would be inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt and say that that's really what they want to do."
________________________________________________________
I'm curious about this. What happened regarding the Air Force in 1991?
-
OMX
[Read the article: Interview with Aaron Brown on NYT "military analyst" story]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If I recall correctly, the USAF bombed the absolute living hell out of Iraq in 1991. ;-)
I would think all those photos and film of our smart bombs and all those Scuds being destroyed would make the case for increased prestige and funding for said Air Force. I am not a military commentator, analyst or Pentagon flack.
Maybe I should ask Steve Boylan. He tends to give factual, coolheaded answers to questions.