Letters to the Editor
Reality-based Liberal
Published Letters: 774 Editor's Choice: 100
-
@ doc5467
[Read the article: Is Hillary running away with the race?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I should say that don't defend every Clinton attacker. But I do think many point out specific problems that are never engaged by her defenders.
Also, I think part of what worries me is that you are right that she won't be as verbally divisive as Bush, and that will make it harder for people who don't pay attention to details not reported on CNN to see the things that would bother me. Everybody knows that Bush sides with money over people, but Clinton could do it and have liberals burnishing posters of her on their dorm room walls.
Thanks for you patience. I'm not optimistic. I hope Edwards wins, I guess, but that's not likely. I also hope you're right.
And nice to hear from IL -- used to be a Chicago resident myself.
-
Former Republican
[Read the article: Clinton goes after Obama on Iran]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You misread. I think Republican voters are too stupid to realize that the Republican Party isn't on their side (and that Clinton is much like the Republican Party).
They hate Clinton because she's somewhat liberal on social issues and because the right-wing media make her out to be corrupt and for big government. But the GOP is generally even more corrupt and for big intrusive government too (with exceptions like Ron Paul).
The only fair cop is that Clinton would not cattle-prod gay people or moderate Christians. And you're right, I'm sure some Republican voters understand that clear as day.
-
Former Republican
[Read the article: Clinton goes after Obama on Iran]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I am perfectly comfortable saying at least TWO thirds, probably more, of the nation have no idea what's good for them. They have no idea how to even think about social engagement because that part of their brain is starved in America.
And I'm not saying the Democrats are their saviors either. Though I'll add that even if you're rich, the GOP is not any good for you in the long run (only if you are among the SUPER rich might you have an argument). When the dollar collapses and there are riots in the streets, you have to have a lot of money to buy insulation.
Yes, Former Republican, what I say sounds arrogant. No, it's not equivalent to Ann Coulter. Statements are not equal just because they are equally strident. A strident supporter of Hitler and a strident supporter of Ghandi are not the same. But in America, they are the same, which is why Americans are so hopelessly misguided. Everyone is entitled the same respect here, however wrong they are and however fact-free their arguments/positions/policies. Science, facts, history and the like just don't matter in America, which is why someone like Bush can get elected and not get impeached. It's why people who were wrong from day one about the war -- and continue to be wrong every day since -- still get to go on the news and tell people how things are. In fact, in America, being wrong makes you more credible. Those who call things right, but are in the minority when they do, are still regarded as crazy even once the whole nation comes around to their side. We pride collusion over vision, group think over free thought.
So call me arrogant if you wish. But I stand by the statement that being honest and simple does not make you right or well informed. (And I should add before you make any assumptions that I don't think being informed doesn't make you right either -- this started with a discussion of Clinton, who I think is likely very knowledgeable, and still chooses against the people).
-
@ Ciccina
[Read the article: Clinton goes after Obama on Iran]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You are being juvenile. First off, it's not my obligation to care about your issues. But the issues you brought up are ones that I've been fighting for longer than you've been alive, I would guess, and I don't need some political ignoramus telling me I don't care about rights and the court.
If you think people who are upset about Clinton don't care about this stuff -- especially the rollback of our rights -- then you don't listen to what some of us are saying and you don't pay attention to the candidate you support either. You can project all you want onto her, but don't start running down people for not caring about important matters because we don't cast the same projections. I would love to love Clinton, but facts get in the way. They don't for you, so enjoy your political childhood as best you can, because Clinton will probably win and by the time her administration has run its course we can talk about what she's done for America. Will she be better than Bush? Sure. But what bothers me is that she will still move us in the wrong direction and there's not any time for that.
-
Thank you Tim
[Read the article: Those uncompromising Democrats]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's about time we started to realize that Fox News is a minor threat. Everyone expects them to warp the frames of the news to favor the Right, but the Washington Post, which some still think liberal, is more insidious because it isn't viewed as biased against the Left.
For that matter, All Things Considered is not much better -- again, a "liberal" outlet that packs more punch than Fox when it leans to the Right.
Last night's All Things Considered featured a conversation between Robert Siegel and Gingrich that was pure PR, with a political value that Fox could never deliver. Siegel pitched questions that could have come from Gingrich's talking points, challenged not one of Gingrich's assertions or implications, and reinforced the unsourced foundations of Gingrich's positions, even going so far as to support the view that the GOP is historically pro-environment without offering any of the clear counter evidence -- all with his "you can trust me" NPR voice.
Take a listen if you missed it; it's amazing:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15732636