Letters to the Editor
What Constitution?
Published Letters: 187
-
How to package it
[Read the article: The right and men who live off their second wives' inherited wealth]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Yes, the right wing criticisms of John Kerry for "having a wealthy spouse" in 2004 should, in a non-hypocritical world, be getting resurrected and repeated now by those people now, since John McCain is in the same [swift]boat. Since that's not going to happen from the right, how can the point be made by the left in a way that does not backfire?
Have John Kerry do it in a TV ad.
I assume that the point is not that marrying into money is inherently and necessarily evil and forecloses holding public office (since Kerry would have been disqualified). The point is that if you're going to say it is, then you should have enough integrity to say it is even if it's McCain.
If Obama does this, you can bet the Right will scream it's "a cheap shot" and, as several commenters have noted, the Republicans expect to win either way if the issue is even raised -- which only demonstrates that they assume the Democrats will be too cowardly to comment.
But what if John Kerry hosted/narrated an exposition of the 2004 snipes collected by GG here, and made the theme of the ad not that he was disqualified or that McCain is disqualified but, rather, "can you believe what the Republican cheerleaders are telling you now if this is what they told you in 2004?" A "where is the truth/this kind of hypocrisy can't be rewarded" theme, tied into McCain represents Bush's third term and don't you believe otherwise? If Kerry says it, it isn't a cheap shot -- it's a reminder and, quite frankly, Kerry comes off as a statesman for saying it. Let's focus on what matters when electing a president, but what does it say about the integrity of these conservative cheerleaders that they would vilify John Kerry but ignore the same "fault" in their own candidate?
It seems clear enough that "negative campaigning works". But it is also clear that people would like to believe they don't like negative campaigning. The term "swiftboating" is shorthand for negative, unfair ads -- but they still happen. So here's a chance to run an ad based on swiftboating tactics (the 2004 "he married rich" line used against Kerry) without actually using it against McCain except to the extent of pointing out the hypocrisy of those who threw exactly such mud before.....
Oh, and is there a quote from McCain himself or from one of McCain's current campaign advisors making these types of comments about Kerry back in '04?
-
Updating the software
[Read the article: AT&T thanks the Blue Dog Democrats with a lavish party]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Glenn, you couldn't be invited to this event because you don't have the right microchip implanted. This was organized to allow a simple, expeditious program upgrade to ver.3.6, and it was thought best to assemble all those properly implanted into a single location to allow all the Blue Dogs to be upgraded simultaneously by RFID transmission. The non-Blue Dog industry and lobbyist invitees were there for facial recognition implanting. So, no, you weren't invited or allowed.
-
Just wondering
[Read the article: Warnings to Russia from Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Is "Max Boot" really that guy's real name? I mean, it's a joke name, right? Can anyone read the name "Max Boot" without thinking of Gestapo Colonel Hockstetter from Hogan's Heroes or the guy in Raiders of the Lost Ark? And then you read what he's saying and it only confirms that the guy believes he's a Gestapo power maven? So what's his real name?
-
Just Another Substance-Free Zone
[Read the article: Greek columns? Really?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Alex Koppelman, the guy who brought Salon readers a "DOA/nothing to see here" dismissal notification when Rep. Kucinich introduced Articles of Impeachment in the House against W, now is concerned about whether the stage decorations might evoke some snarky Rovian criticism. Note to Alex: they will. No matter what they are. Next.
If this gig doesn't ultimately work out for you, maybe there will be a spot on "OK!" Magazine. And I guess today's topic is at least preferable to having you speculate about whether Obama's speech will criticize Hillary's speech for not having been "contrite" and "defeated" enough.
I didn't like your piece this morning. Sorry.