Letters to the Editor
Reality-based Liberal
Published Letters: 774 Editor's Choice: 100
-
As other point out...
[Read the article: So long, white boy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If a voter leans to the right socially, but isn't rich, why not vote GOP? The Democratic Party leadership has long since decided to fund their races by adopting GOP foreign and domestic economic policy and banking on the hate social liberals and cuckold unions have for the GOP to scrounge up a margin for victory -- turning "the lesser of two evils" into a permanent strategy.
If Democrats took on banks rather than taking their money, took on the healthcare industry rather than taking their money, fought for billions in public school spending, promised a $12 minimum hourly wage, etc., they would get a lot of white men without losing any minorities or women (probably turning more of them out). A united front on these issues would make it hard for the Right to apply the "liberal tax and spend" label, but so long as only a handful of Democrats represent the public it's easy to do (notice how msm talking heads -- including "Democrats" -- call people opposed to the war the "liberal left" -- about 65% of the public).
In fact, that Democrats don't make these obvious adjustments suggests that the current leadership believes winning is less important than keeping the status quo. Probably has much to do with the fact that party big wigs owe their party control to fundraising capabilities and would be useless in an honest party.
-
If you assume
[Read the article: Backtracking on the drawdown]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If you assume the goal is to have fixed bases in Iraq to control the region, and maximum pressure to coerce Iraq into privatizing its oil, then you can predict the future pretty well (it's worked perfectly so far).
Notice neither political party challenges these things -- and they require continued major military occupation (however Democratic presidential front runners parse).
-
Thank you normanx
[Read the article: Backtracking on the drawdown]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thanks for keeping what matters in the debate.
-
Ktwdawg
[Read the article: Straight talking the Wall Street Journal]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I have to disagree. McCain has been all over the place on any number of issues and looks to me to be grasping at straws. Any reputation he had for being a man of principle is in tatters, and rightfully so.
-
The Pod People are In Charge
[Read the article: Limitless wrongness]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]No functional democracy. Little public access to the airwaves or printing presses. Ever more concentration of land and money in the hands of those who pre-select the candidates for whom we are allowed to vote. And constant disinformation from the outsourced Ministry of Truth.
Meanwhile, at a public forum, the former Democratic presidential candidate makes jokes about a questioner while that questioner is being pinned to the ground and tasered for asking a question outside accepted conventions.
Anyone calling this the land of the free and the home of the brave must be forced to explain exactly how they are defining "free" and "brave."
-
Why not, it works
[Read the article: The return of Karl Rove]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Hillary herself has bought into the mythical story that she once pushed socialized medicine (hence her statements that she has "learned from her mistakes" as she pushes right-wing, tax-credit healthcare).
If I were the Republicans, I'd just keep on claiming crazy crap like this because it works. Call the Democrats chicken and they'll support your war. Call the Democrats socialists and they'll shovel out taxpayer dollars to industry. It's a piece of cake.
-
This is the Bush M.O.
[Read the article: The buck stops ... over there]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]One consistent characteristic in Bush's career is the regular transference of responsibility from Bush to underlings, who will be lauded and blamed in rotation.
Gonzales is a prime example. From the beginning in Texas, Alberto positioned himself to be the fall guy if information harmful to Bush got out, writing criminally incomplete death penalty case reviews for Governor Bush to use to assess clemency and commutation appeals. If a demonstrably innocent person is killed and made a media event, Bush would have been able to say -- "I just read this one-pager that Mexican wrote." Lucky for Gonzales, our current media environment allowed him to move on up unscathed until 2007, and even then only have to kind of fall on his sword.
Similarly, Bush has put Petraeus forward as a check on his own power ("I just do what Petraeus says he needs"). Who buys that Petraeus makes final decisions as an independent thinker? No doubt, as we've seen again and again in Iraqi and U.S. government, Petraeus' star will fall and he will become a loser -- but there is a NEW STAR, and Congress shall worship this new star as "the center."
-
@juneausmog
[Read the article: Hillary Clinton's healthcare 2.0]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Is it "cynical" to want the facts? Is it "hate" to oppose right-wing schemes?
I have principles not based in irrational emotion: I want real coverage of the issues, not horse races; I oppose giving tax dollars to already profitable and problematic industries.
Please tell me why I should support Hillary, instead of assuming that such support should be my default position.
-
@djansing
[Read the article: Hillary Clinton's healthcare 2.0]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You miss the point of critics. I oppose Clinton's plan not because it's a small step in the direction of a far off goal; I oppose Clinton's plan because it takes us in the wrong direction.
Clinton herself said that there would be no new bureaucracies, but that there would be tax credits to taxpayers who would have to give that money to insurance companies. That's enough information for me to ask: How will government make sure that the policies people are forced to buy at discount rates with their tax rebates will be good coverage? With no oversight ("no new bureaucracies") it seems logical to expect that the new private-sector policies bought with public-sector tax dollars will be awful.