Letters to the Editor
Reality-based Liberal
Published Letters: 774 Editor's Choice: 100
-
To Harrington and others
[Read the article: Ready or not, here she comes]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Harrington, you are a rude person with your ad hominem attacks.
You and others speak down to folks who expect some sign of life from the rule of law as though they are children, who "don't get it." You call us “idiots” while at the same time suggesting that simply electing Democrats -- without holding them to account -- will somehow magically produce progressive results. Now that's naive.
I throw my hat in with the folks who say today's events demand leadership -- and that leadership does, in fact, win elections.
I also think it’s time we checked the shrill voices who condemn anyone attempting to mold the fragile Democratic Party into a real opposition party. That’s right – those who say “leave it alone and just vote for it,” are not helping advance the rule of law, or democracy. Politicians are politicians, and they need to feel the whip of public power in order to do the right thing -- especially in such a money-laden system, which produces Democrats more corporate than Nixon-era Republicans.
Indeed, anyone who thinks Democrats elected without a mandate will do one damn progressive thing is the real fool, ignorant of any history predating last week.
I say good for you, Cindy Sheehan -- win or lose, you aren't waiting for politics to change on its own. God knows it never will. I only wish so many "progressives" didn't believe otherwise.
-
Thanks Harrington
[Read the article: Ready or not, here she comes]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I have to admit, I get a little worked up myself.
Also wasn't fair to imply that you opposed taking on the Dems (though that is a sentiment among some here, and it gets easy to lump people together).
Also not sure that I think Sheehan has got the right idea. Just not sure I do either and I'm glad to see someone acting upon the Democratic Party. We can't make the GOP work for us, so I think we need to the Democratic Party work for America.
-
Agree with anonymous
[Read the article: Gonzales on the hot seat]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Hard to imagine that Rove et al don't see the upside of exposing the Democrats' impotence.
-
Here's the acid test for me:
[Read the article: How the Democrats differ on Iraq]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]On what terms do we leave?
Anonymous is right: we would still owe reparations for the damage we preemptively caused. Don't bet on this happening. Already Clinton and the congressional Democrats (maybe other presidential candidates) are actually blaming Iraqis for the mess. In fact, they are blaming the Iraqis for not passing a bill that would turn their oil over to Exxon et al.
Wow.
-
Reply to Ktwdawg
[Read the article: Pouring saltwater in Katrina victims' wounds]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I hope what you call for does not happen. Europe takes care of its own without bathing in religion, why should we? I see religion in politics as mainly a tool for obfuscation, placing a misleading veneer over a profession that has no call for overt religiosity.
I'd add that while we are used to the GOP using religion to pander to people's worst, there's no reason that Democrats won't use it to pander to people's best -- by word loving the poor, and by action serving the same donors the GOP serves.
Finally, if you need religion to get your point across as a public servant in a secular government, you're probably not qualified for the job.
-
Thanks Digby
[Read the article: Whose war is it, anyway?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thank you for taking on the idea that Iraqis are to blame for their nation being in tatters. The next step is to get congressional Democrats to stop using this logic -- especially in their efforts to cozy up to the oil companies by demanding privatization of Iraqi oil (aka "benchmarks"). This nation already has one too many oil parties in the GOP.
-
Here's what happens
[Read the article: If a contempt citation falls in the woods ...?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The complaint goes to the US Attorney in DC, who under Bush's orders does nothing. Congress then goes to a judge who cannot rule on criminal contempt, but can find them in contempt and require them produce documents and evidence. Bush appeals, slowly.
Best scenario is that the SC rules in June that Bush admin must comply with congressional subpoena, then Bush doesn't really comply and provides some stuff and testimony isn't under oath. Congress has to go back to the courts, etc. and then it's election time.
The result? Well Bush can't go any lower in the polls, but the Democratic base sure will be demoralized. If I were advising Gonzales et al, I'd tell them to looks as bad as possible -- it only makes Democratic voters lose faith.
-
Brass Ones gets it
[Read the article: If a contempt citation falls in the woods ...?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You said it. The powers behind Bush and broader imperialism have figured out that it's a whole lot easier to control one, all-powerful administration than to buy Congress. All you need is a president (or presidential puppet-master) with enough balls to act without hesitation and ignore congressional meddling.
So the question really comes down to how will they cancel the elections? Another 9/11? Or, perhaps they just rig the vote again and install the equally imperialistic Giuliani.