Letters to the Editor
Reality-based Liberal
Published Letters: 774 Editor's Choice: 100
-
Attacks on the base
[Read the article: Pelosi: It's about the war]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I see here many posters who are losing their temper with those of us who would support the rule of law over a partisan strategy. Please calm down.
It is not unamerican, misguided or even anti-Democrat to conclude that Bush and his folks are setting precedents so ugly that to let them go unaddressed risks the future of the Republic. Perhaps we are wrong, but we aren't children and I don't think we should be spoken to in that way.
Moreover, a common assumption in the attacks on those who want to see justice served is that we should just wait for the Democrats to play their cards carefully enough to sweep into office. Three problems:
- Politics 101 -- the Democrats (and the candidates) give me reasons to stay home every day, yet the GOP came back from the wilderness to take over in the 80s and 90s by serving their base. Hurting the base is bad political strategy.
- Because the GOP took over by going to the hard right and rewarding their base, they created a "mandate" to push radical policy. When the uber-cautious Democrats take office in Jan. 2009, they will have no mandate whatsoever, and the president will probably not even renounce the powers Bush has claimed.
- Finally, those Dems may play it "safe" not because it's good strategy, but because they actually aren't liberal. They get more money from corporations than they do from unions, or any other organized "progressive" lobby -- including trial lawyers, who I wouldn't actually confuse with progressivism, traditionally understood. They figure suckers like Magno68 are always going to assume Democrats are for the common people and will shout down the base that expects more. Who else you gonna vote for?
I agree with those posters here who say pushing for impeachment and real accountability in these troubled times is a duty, not a strategic choice. But I would also say that it just happens to be a good strategic choice for Democrats too -- if they actually believe the liberal things they say.
-
magno68
[Read the article: Pelosi: It's about the war]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]On the impeachment of Bush: Newsweek had the polling at 51 percent in the summer before the '06 election and another poll put it at above 50 percent just recently (google search will find it for you), but people also said it wasn't likely to happen or succeed.
I don't think it would succeed, but I think people are missing my point and the points others are making: it has to happen if we care about the law. If someone was sexually abusing your daughter, you wouldn't say "let it continue until they move out of town." This man and his puppet masters are destroying our nation. Worse, they are setting the precedent that politics is all that matters -- and the Democratic inaction bolsters this precedent.
-
Also Magno 68...
[Read the article: Pelosi: It's about the war]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Who said anything about being a socialist? Moreover, you are way to the left (in terms of the political parties) if you want to pay more taxes for universal health care, as you say you do.
The Democrats aren't liberal -- they aren't even "progressive," whatever that means. They are corporate owned with an occasional leftish spin. It is our duty to take the party back. In a democracy, we the people should be represented.
And it's not about making Democrats some kind of pot-smoking space cadets -- it's about making them representative of the 70 percent who oppose the war and have no party -- the 60 percent or so that support single payer healthcare and have no party -- the nearly 80 percent who say corporations have too much power and are never found on TV or in a politician's speech. When is the last time you heard Obama or Clinton say: "corporate power has run amok and I will do something about it?" Never. So who represents that 80 percent? No one. Nice democracy. Let's keep quiet, lest we disturb the fragile Democrats.
-
Yeah tiberius
[Read the article: Pelosi: It's about the war]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Because the nation is so united now.
-
Still uncertain
[Read the article: Obama and Clinton, Round 2?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]While I'm glad to see Obama state that he would talk to anybody, that seems like a no-brainer in my own set of morals. In other words, I'm not sure that recommends him so much as proves that he shouldn't be dismissed.
That said, I'm more troubled by the indication that Obama wants to keep the "war on terror" going -- as though being "tough" is what's needed. I think the US has committed crimes far worse than any other nation in this millennium and what a real leader would do is admit that and make good by promoting not just talks, but a total change in policy.
I realize that given the media drumbeat that says the US is always right and the wide belief that we are, you couldn't just come out and say what I propose above, but there are ways to say it and be heard respectfully. At the very least, you don't have to keep pushing fiction and buy into the war on terror.
-
C'mon Tim!
[Read the article: Giving it all away]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The Democrats take over and you are beating up the RANKING MEMBER? Look, who cares what Specter says; Leahy's running the show and the buck stops with him.
It's about time we stopped complaining about Bush and the Republicans. Yes, they are evil and corrupt. That's not news to anyone but a child, who can get excited over the same thing again and again. If we actually care about the things that are going to hell under Bush, then we should be kicking the Democrats to get their heads out of their asses and get back to transforming this nation back into one that prioritizes the rule of law and global welfare (we should be demanding they get off the corporate dole too).