Letters to the Editor
Reality-based Liberal
Published Letters: 774 Editor's Choice: 100
-
Here's a thought
[Read the article: Obama captain: "I may have to resign" over flier]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]My reaction was that this story isn't much of a story. And once I heard Clinton's supposed slight to MLK, I have to say, that's another non-story.
There's no way to prove Obama endorsed this. And working in and around campaigns, the captain's version is very believable to me (that the campaign said "don't tell us" and implied the staffer was free to advocate on his own).
And Clinton's remarks about LBJ making the Dream real by making the Civil Rights Act the law of the land were fair. Johnson used force of will and office to push non-corporate moral law with more skill and dedication than has been seen since (Bill Clinton's weak Family and Medical Leave Act doesn't come close). Oh, and LBJ also created Medicare, which continues to extend the life and quality of life of tens of millions of African Americans, who would otherwise be out in the cold. And, sadly, he was also pro-pentagon like both leading Democratic candidates, but at least he had the good sense to refuse a run for office largely because of his failure in Vietnam. Obama would have done well to praise LBJ's contribution but maybe point out that the Dream a) was already coming alive, starting with MLK's busing victory; and b) the dream wasn't realized with the Civil Rights Act and has only been eroded in the last 20 years.
I think scrapping and side-taking on these non-issues hurts us, not because I think we need to fake unity for Democrats, but because it damages democracy.
I wish these pages were filled with discussion of policy, and a willingness to have an open mind -- for any candidate. Think about this: if a progressive who otherwise knew nothing about our elections read Salon articles and threads, would that person have any idea which candidate would be better? And given the plethora of media that is just as useless to such a person, isn't it about time we really looked at policy?
What, specifically, do progressives/liberals want to see enacted? It's easy for the GOP: donors want tax cuts and deregulation for the rich and large businesses. And they had 50 or so major media/advocacy outlets to push these simple policy goals. We should seek the same policy clarity.
The horserace back biting crap is killing not just Democrats, but democracy. You can understand what right-wing pundits mean when they say liberals are children. At least the right-wing machine knows what it wants.
-
The Irony of "Federalists"
[Read the article: The Kucinich court decision and "judicial activism"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Another hallmark of right-wing judicial rhetoric is their celebration of federalism, or "states rights." When the federal government is more liberal than state governments, federalism wss the rallying cry, and groups like the Federalist Society produced huge numbers of jurists placed by the right in high positions supposedly to enforce "states rights."
But watch these "federalists" under the Bush admin. All of a sudden states and state courts had too much power and now need to be reined in by the federal government.
Like "judicial activism," federalism turned out to apply to anything that served the Right Wing -- states rights only matter if the state is on the Right side of an issue.
-
Not voting for Kucinich, but
[Read the article: Betting little in Las Vegas]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Shapiro writes:
Given that Kucinich only collected an embarrassing 3,901 votes in the New Hampshire primary, it is hard to argue that fairness demanded that he was entitled to a national platform.
The bottom line is that MSNBC established guidelines and then reversed them. If the media has absolute authority to pick and choose candidates, even ignoring their own stated guidelines, then this is not a democratic process.
And in terms of whether it's a good idea (not a legal point, btw), the argument could be made that public debate would have benefited from Kucinich's participation, given that he holds policy positions that a large portion of Democratic voters share, and his participation would have forced the viable candidates to address those positions -- good for voters who aren't voting for Kucinich.
-
@Whitecat, Stella and Paulin KY
[Read the article: Betting little in Las Vegas]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Hey you guys, I'll probably vote for Clinton or whoever wins, but I take issue with your attacks.
People have a right to vote their minds. I can understand how someone who views the corporate, GOP-lite style of Clinton, Obama and the Democratic leadership as being just too much to support. And I'd defend Nader voters on the same grounds.
No one should be scolded because they didn't vote for a candidate that they do not support. Not voting for someone who holds positions antithetical to your own is not being a child, it's being an independent person.
I understand that from your point of view there is a cavern of difference between the Democrats and the GOP. But you guys (sorry), like children, think your perspective is universal. For many, the problems that our nation is experiencing will be reinforced by Democrats, because they legitimate GOP goals by largely accepting them (private sector is better than government, we must spend more on warfare than the rest of the world combined, we have the right to wage preemptive war -- all of these positions are held by Clinton and Obama, even if they don't campaign on them). People have a right to be swayed by that information.
Back off and let citizens make up their own mind. If you're right, explain why. Don't just assume that Democrats are great and everyone should get with the program whatever their concerns -- that's not much different than knee-jerk Republicanism.