Letters to the Editor
Rob H.
Published Letters: 122 Editor's Choice: 30
-
Missing the Point of What, Robbins?
[Read the article: The filibuster's pros and cons]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Your headline says I'm missing the point and yet you say absolutely nothing about what point I'm missing. You don't even touch it. You write a flashy headline and then go right back into another diatribe about why the Democrats must filibuster Alito. It's a funny way to -- say -- make a point.
There was something in your post about someone (whom I guess is me) wanting to reduce requirements for a constitutional amendment to a simple majority. How on earth you extrapolated that out of anything I wrote I have no idea. All I did was say that I thought Alito would end up on the court and presented some of the overriding issues confronting the Democrats.
So let me help you out here. Was I missing the point (MTP) because I was addressing some of the pent up hostilities toward the Dems on this board? Gee, guilty as charged on one count of MTP.
But I also recall addressing the problem facing the Democrats on this issue as being an ideological one versus a political one. I also recollect weighing in on some of the other political fights that may affect what the Dems decide to do. I think those observations are rather germane to a piece entitled, "The filibuster's pros and cons."
Your problem, Robbins, like so many others on this board, is that you only want to hear yourself think. And when you do that, you tend to MEEP -- miss everyone else's points.
-
Why Bother Having Democrats in the Senate?
[Read the article: Democrats won't filibuster Alito, but why not?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You're absolutely right, Tim. Why bother having Democrats in the Senate at all?
We know the Democrats in the Senate did nothing on Miguel Estrada. We know they barely protested repeal of the Estate Tax. We know they simply rolled over on medical malpractice reform. We know they ran for cover when drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge was put back on the table. We know they cowered in fear when the Patriot Act was put up for reauthorization.
Oh, wait a second, I'm sorry. I was mistaken on those items above. The Senate Democrats did actually wage successful fights on those issues. Hmmm... maybe that's why we should bother having Democrats in the Senate.
Really, it's bad enough having to read all the Dem bashing posts from folks here who seem to live in an echo chamber and feed off each other's hysterics. I just don't expect to hear this kind of empty rhetoric out of Salon's writers. Lines like, "why bother having Democrats in the Senate at all?" are not only unfair, but easily rebutted by anyone with cursory political knowledge.
That being said, I think Feinstein was witless to have come out and said what she said. I'm not sure what the point of her statements was. Taken alone, I, too, might question why we bother having Democrats in the Senate. But I know there are many other extremely important issues out there. Alito is not the only one.
There are many factors that will go into the decision whether or not to filibuster Alito. Whatever the Democrats decide to do, there really are reasons to have Democrats in the Senate. Some of them are illuminated above. And those fights were and are damn important. To diminish them with cheap throwaway lines is, simply put, inexcusable.
-
Umm.... Steve in SF
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Seattle didn't exactly kill the Redskins. It was a 17-10 game with 12:47 left in the 4th when the Skins connected for a TD. Seattle then fumbled the ensuing kickoff and were saved when the Skins couldn't do anything and even missed a 36 yard FG. And while Brunell put up a respectable 242 yards passing, 154 of those yards came when the Skins were down 17-3 in the 4th. All this speaks to the fact that the Redskins, who managed to gain a staggering 120 yards against the Bucs, were not exactly an offensive juggernaut. To say they were "killed" by Seattle is not only untrue, it lends them an air of competence they don't deserve. Seattle should have really killed them, and they didn't.
As for Carolina, what are you talking about? I was playing running back for Carolina by the end of that game. Carolina's offense was pretty banged up, and when your only real threat becomes one guy (Steve Smith), it ain't difficult for a defense to key in on him.
Which all goes to prove that Seattle has not faced a real tough game in the playoffs. Pittsburgh, on the other hand, has -- on the road -- beaten the top three seeds in the AFC. So how anyone would get the idea that Seattle will kill Pittsburgh is beyond me.
That being said, on any given Sunday...