Letters to the Editor
brewmn
Published Letters: 113 Editor's Choice: 4
-
Not Much To Add
[Read the article: Hillary is from Mars, Obama is from Venus]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]As the overwhelming majority of reponders have indicated, this is truly a disgusting capitulation to outdated notions of gender and strength. Just a couple of points to add:
"While the Indigo Girls are not part of the standard song list at Obama events, the official tunes, which include Aretha Franklin's "Think" and the disco anthem "Ain't No Stopping Us Now," fail to exude any overt appeal to manliness."
So, a song that is telling a man to "think" before treating the woman in his life disrespectfully is not appealing to "manliness?" Then please define the term, Scheurer.
The Daily Howler consistently accuses the writers at the liberal opinion magazines of shading their opinions to appeal to the centrist-right mainstream outlets like the Washington Post, Time and Newsweek. With "analysis" like this, it would appear Mr. Scheurer is angling for one of those bigger-time gigs. He should be fired immediately as a result.
And, to his defender's I say: just remember the lessons of Joe Lieberman. No matter how unrepresentative of liberal thought in general, no matter how dishonest or wrongheaded a statement may be, the Republicans always manage to say "even sensible Democrats like Lieberman think we should keep plowing $12 billion a month into Iraq, with no end in sight."
Can the Limbaugh's of the world saying "even a liberal rag like Salon think Obama's a girl" be far behind? For that matter, when do we get Scheurer appearing on Matt Drudge's radion show decrying liberal bias in the media, and how he really, really likes conservatives?
-
Disagree with Robert Bohdan
[Read the article: John Yoo -- then and now]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"These articles are directed at the 25% who still believe. It is an attempt to stop the hemmoraging by providing some sort of justification for what us sane people see as an incompetent government answerable to no one."
What I think they are doing is much more mendacious. What they are doing is laying an alternative groundwork for the inevitable failure of Bush's Iraq policy, and his civil liberty-destroying antiterror policies generally.
They want to make a (seemingly) plausible claim that the only reason we lost Iraq, and the only reason for us suffering the next large-scale terrorist attack, is that we fought to protect our civil liberties instead of acquiescing to the authoritarian state they so ardently desire. Then, when the inevitable attack occurs, thier little footnote to history, given some apparent legitimacy by virtue of their prominence at this time (i.e, coming out of the mouths of high-level administration officials and being published by major news outlets), will be available to the next set of fascists that feel that we can only protect ourselves by complete obliteration of our democratic principles.
-
Feinstein is as Corrupt...
[Read the article: Feinstein for Clinton]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]..as corrupt gets. Her husband made hundreds of millions of dollars via questionably bid military contracts.
If Obama plays this right, Feinstein's endorsement of Clinton is a plus for his campaign.
-
Feel Free to Kick Glenn Beck All you Want
[Read the article: The return of Bullhorn Man]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]But it was the mainstream media that turned Bush's "bullhorn moment" into the modern day equivalent of a spartan standing fast at Thermpoylae, not the typical rightwing deepthroaters.
And I must quibble with saintzak for the same reason: "By the time he's out of office it will be in a resale shop somewhere. I never understood the majesty of that bullhorn moment."
The MSM and the Washington establishment still love George Bush. He's the perfect combination of blue-blood patrician, military-industrial complex enabling chickenhawk, and pretend aw-shucks regular joe that utterly obtuse Washington society loves. He is throrughly, utterly and completely one of them.
-
Turn This Show Off!
[Read the article: If this is success, what is failure?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Didn't I see this in early 2004, when it was called "the Liberation of Fallujah," or something like that? Unless we level an entire city, the fighters come back shortly after we leave for the next "hot spot."
-
It's Not Just Bush
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"The still most powerful elements of the Bush faction clearly are eager for an attack on Iran. Bush has nothing to lose. Other than outright mutiny from the U.S. military, it is impossible to see who would stop him if he decided to do that. I have long been baffled by the prevailing refusal to believe that this is going to happen -- a refusal grounded far more in hope than in reality."
Sorry, Glenn. Over 300 members of Congress have signed on for tougher action against Iran, providing Bush with yet more cover for an attack. I, for one, want to know why.
If we attack Iran with nothing but token opposition form Democrats, then I will know (as I already suspect) that we do not have even the most basic trappings of democracy in America any more. We only have corporate interests, and their bootlicking water carriers posing as a government.
-
Way, Way Too Optimistic on Your Part, Gary
[Read the article: The waning power of the War Myth]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The "liberal" Washington Post is already arguing for war with Iran. All of the Republicans, most of the mainstream media, and a majority of the Democrats believe in an American hegemony maintained through military investment and action.
The media is already blaming the Democrats who argue for withdrawal, even withdrawal proposed in the most gradual and conditional fashion, as not being serious about the consequences, and to be naively calling for a bloodbath in the entire region.
The real truth, to be sorted out in a post-America world, is that this war was lost the moment we decided to wage it. The problem we sought to solve was not one that offers itself a military solution. Nevertheless, no matter when we leave Iraq, the blame will be put on those who effect a sensible withdrawal. Those who lied to drum up public support for it, who waged it on faulty assumptions and failed to make any efforts to change its disastrous course, will once again be the victims of a fickle, cowardly public, seduced by false promises of peace and stability offered by a craven Democratic Party.
-
MICKI's Post
[Read the article: Al who? Clinton announces another endorsement]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"She will restore a greater sense of community in America, and reclaim our standing in the world."
Compared to Bush. maybe. Compared to a real Democrat who is not in love with perpetual war, or in love with an agenda devoid of any substance except a reflexive fealty to global capital, not so much.