Letters to the Editor
WinSmith
Published Letters: 102
-
rollo
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What's clear is I can make actual points a lot quicker than you can formulate four paragraphs to essentially call me "angry."
Sorry dude. You can tell me I'm meany, or my phrases aren't right, or anything else without actually making a coherent point on the substance of the discussion, but it really doesn't get us very far. But that's apparently what you do as a "regular" (to discredit the "Other" as a person rather than the merits of the argument).
Yes, as a fellow liberal, I think this discussion was a bunch of hysterics and Greenwald worshipers who called me every name in the book for daring to introduce the very real actual anti-Semitism that emerges from ADL-AIPAC-Lieberman conspiracy theories elsewhere. I said we, as legitimate liberals who want to criticize those groups on the merits of their flaws, must be careful not to fall into typical hidden conspiracy money paranoia. This is the trap many fall into when talking about AIPAC or Lieberman. They perpetuate age old anti-Semitic narratives without any awareness, just as many forms of cultural racism exist outside of an individual saying, "Hey, I hate Jews!"
So you're correct, I'm not here to convince anymore. I gave that up after about six or seven comments, right around the time Glenn was calling me "dishonest" and the gang of Limbaugh-like apologists were freaking out that I DARED to imply anti-Semitic narratives can be perpetuated by people who loved Schindler's List and think Adam Sandler's hilarious.
It was a shallow discussion, but I learned a lot. Much of it troubling to me. I still haven't processed it all, but this rotting inside the progressive movement could get much, much worse if it's allowed to grow.
As to Kitt, there's no way in hell I'm rewriting the numerous points I've already written in this board because you have the A.D.D. attention span of a gnat. Try Ritalin.
-
They're the best we have
[Read the article: Democratic complicity in Bush's torture regimen]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I agree with you on the substance, Glenn, but, to paraphrase a war criminal, we go to war with the political party we have, not the one we wish we had.
I agree that democrats share blame for not being stronger opposition, however they are still the opposition (however ineffectual) and that places them on the correct side of the dividing line.
The danger in slamming the democratic party for their many legitimate failures in stopping the republican tyranny is that it tends to link republicans and democrats as "the same."
This danger is why we have George W. Bush in the first place.
Because Ralph Nader managed to convince people that there was "no difference" between Al Gore and George W. Bush.
And I think it's safe to say that that was the most incoherent argument this side of a Monty Python sketch.
So while I agree with the issues, I wonder if it helps to rage against the weak democrats over past issues, rather than focus our fire for the cause of the infection -- the republican party.
Yes, we need better democrats than the capitulators in office today.
But with an election coming up in less than a year, our rage directed at democrats, while just and deserved, could have the practical effect of damaging our cause.
I get slammed for saying this, but I'd rather we tear apart our own party AFTER we win the presidency in 2008. Then we can begin the proper purge without the danger of letting another Dubya slip by because Al Gore is "stiff."
-
Edwards surge??
[Read the article: The role of political reporters]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Great post Glenn, I agree with all of your points on the substance of the argument, but I disagree with your contesting that somehow Edwards is surging more than Barack Obama. The one poll you cite implies that, but there are so many others showing an enormous momentum building for Obama both in New Hampshire and Nationally.
I don't see how you can argue that Edwards's campaign deserves more attention than Obama's after Iowa.
I do agree that Edwards has been shunned by the national media due to personal dislike, just as with Ron Paul.
I just think it's hard to convincingly argue that the last week's events require Edwards receive more attention than Obama.
-
Drudge and Bush Crying
[Read the article: Chris Matthews is right ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Drudge very much rules their world, and another fantastic deconstruction Glenn.
Does anyone else remember back around 2004-2005, when Matt Drudge was frequently running heroic Bush images on his mainpage, there was a pic of Bush hugging a woman who had lost someone on 9/11, and Bush was staring directly into the camera with a tear in his eye?
It was the most absurdly over the top pic, but Drudge ran it with the usual hero worship, something along the lines of "he cares" or "healer" or some nonsense.
That would be a great pic to find with the Hillary "crying" nonsense.
Speaking of which, Drudge controls the traditional media simply by his choice of pictures. Thus the funny pics of Hillary Clinton all googley eyed contrasted with the heroic Bush pics.
Or, now, zero Bush pics.
In Drudge's world, George W. Bush no longer existed. He never existed.
Just like my namesake, Winston Smith, in the digital world, you don't have to edit the newspapers of the past. The digital screen simply changes.
-
Drudge and Bush Crying: Followup
[Read the article: Chris Matthews is right ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Found the pic, not sure if he's actually crying. Here it is:
http://images.usatoday.com/news/_photos/2005/01/17/ashley-ad.jpg
And here was the wingnut worship of his "healing" powers:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1159791/posts