Letters to the Editor
Reality-based Liberal
Published Letters: 774 Editor's Choice: 100
-
To johncp
[Read the article: Who is the most "electable" Democrat?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Here are just three reasons why I don't like Clinton -- with specific explanations.
SHE IS DISHONEST:
Clinton said she would pay for her retirement plan by freezing Bush's estate tax cut in the year that has the second lowest rate -- 2009 (taxes get lower for the rich each year and hit the lowest in 2010, and it 2011 goes back to pre-Bush levels). So instead of "paying" for anything, her proposal would lose the treasury over $400 billion in the first 10 years after 2011 -- money that would go to the richest in our society. She thinks we won't notice she is lying. Check this out, it's all on the record.
SHE IS CORPORATE:
Both her retirement plan and her healthcare plan would hand a small amount of taxpayer money over to people who want to save or get healthcare, and then those people would have to buy private insurance or invest with private firms. The insurance private companies would offer for some small tax rebate, and the investment opportunities for those who save the max -- $1,000 -- would do more to subsidize these industries than help those in whose name she claims to be proposing these things. On healthcare, the US already spends way more than nations with universal government insurance; this plan increases total spending and still leaves us with a patchwork private system that anyone with crappy insurance knows is no answer.
SHE IS DANGEROUS:
Everyone knows she gave Bush the right to start a war that Bush was dead set on starting. I knew that Bush wanted war -- not a stick -- from just reading publicly available information (as did a good number of elected officials who saw whatever "evidence" that Iraq was dangerous). Then she designated Iran's guard a terrorist organization and then said the reason was to get a stick -- not that they WERE terrorist. So like Bush, she sees the "terrorist" label as a weapon, not meaningful designation. This is particularly evil given that she isn't exactly on the forefront of Bush's effort to use this label to deny rights to individuals.
-
Correction and addition
[Read the article: Who is the most "electable" Democrat?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I meant to say Clinton, who uses the terrorist label as a stick rather than a accurate designation, is not at the forefront in THE FIGHT AGAINST Bush's use of this label to take away rights.
And as far as the establishment media attacking her, is this a joke? The only story on Edwards for months was his haircut, while there were endless stories about how Clinton was running away with it -- indeed, many mainstream stories started looking at the general election back in early fall, sending the message that the primary was over. I'd also add that the reason she led from the beginning is because she had the highest name recognition (polls showed most of the public as recently as August, couldn't name any other Democratic candidate. Leading at the beginning means almost nothing.
-
snarlingcoyote & shooter242
[Read the article: New poll reveals how unrepresentative neocon Jewish groups are]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Snarlingcoyote: It's not that people at Salon don't know that right-wing Jewish groups aren't representative; it's that our media doesn't share this information with mono-sectarian Christian enclaves across America -- which comprise a lot of people. In fact, any Americans who don't interact with Jewish communities on a regular basis may well be ignorant of the fact that most Jews don't for Palestinian land and blood.
Shooter242: Actually, in Israel there's a lot more open discussion about all this stuff. Mainstream peace groups there would be radical anti-Semites by MSM standards in the U.S.
-
Question about Keyes' participation
[Read the article: The GOP's field of dreams]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This debate was also hosted by AARP, which eliminated Dennis Kucinich from a Democratic debate that it sponsored a few weeks ago. This led to charges of censorship given AARP's multi-billion dollar ties to the private healthcare insurance industry and Kucinich's call for a single payer system. AARP rejected these charges by claiming that Kucinich was barred based on polling and on-the-ground Iowa operations (he was beating Dodd and Biden in Iowa polls at the time).
Well now the lie is clear. How would AARP defend the claim that Alan Keyes -- who I didn't even know was running -- had more support in Iowa than Dennis Kucinich? It can't.
-
What if we call the Democrats' bluff?
[Read the article: Democrats show Beltway "strength," avoid being depicted as weak]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]One interesting development since the Democrats took over Congress is that they have gotten weaker. They are less likely to filibuster and more likely to vote to legalize Bush's transgressions, now that such congressional approval requires Democratic votes.
So what would happen if we give them a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and a Democratic White House? Would they all of a sudden get tough and liberal? Or would they have to recalibrate again to keep the authoritarian push on track?
The argument could be made that key members of both parties support the dark path we're on, and that we have to give Democrats total power before we realize that this party needs to be reclaimed by the people.
For example, I wouldn't gamble much money on the prospect of a Clinton White House and a Democratic Congress banning torture, as defined by international law. I wouldn't even bet that they would eliminate spying without warrants, or restore habeas corpus.
-
pantanal is right
[Read the article: Democrats show Beltway "strength," avoid being depicted as weak]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Karl Rove knew this: play to the base and the "swing voters" will follow. From Goldwater's loss to Bush's two terms, the GOP pushed hard to the right, embracing their base.
Given that we only have two parties and the Rove strategy's success is currently in the White House, it's hard to understand how the Democrats haven't learned this. In fact, one wonders if they really agree with their base.
And thanks, Glenn, for the response about strength. In human endeavors, conviction and leadership sway people more than logic. Again, see Karl Rove's winning strategy.
(Of course, I'm not arguing for abandonment of logic, only that logic tells you what you should do, not necessarily how to do it.)