Letters to the Editor
_zack_
Published Letters: 372 Editor's Choice: 5
-
Iraq - a "losing" issue for the Democrats
[Read the article: Conceding John McCain's "toughness" on national security]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Friday morning I happened to flick on the “liberal” MSNBC and all the “expert” talking heads (including Shuster) agreed that the Democrats should not talk about leaving Iraq because that was a losing issue for them. Their consensus was that John McCain “owned” the issue of Iraq, and if the Democrats dared to talk about it, they would surely loose the election. There was no dissenting opinion – it was stated as a “political fact” that must be taken for granted.
Is there any evidence for this?
Mark Noonan (Blogs for Bush) attempts to make the case that there is and as evidence for this position he cites the recent Rasmussen survey and concludes:
“…and thus we can see that the basic position of Obama, US out of Iraq pronto, is not supported by the American people, if Rasmussen’s poll is correct (and Rasmussen is building up a very good track record of getting it right). The leftwing position on Iraq is just not supported by anything close to a majority of the American people, and thus I think that both Obama and Hillary are building themselves up an ever larger Achilles heel on Iraq - when confronted in October between a choice for surrender and a choice for victory, I believe the American people will choose wisely.” [1]
Funny thing about Mark’s evidence, though – the poll he cited found that found “that 59% of Americans would like to see U.S. troops brought home from Iraq within a year” – which is basically Obama’s position (his goal is having them home by the end of 2008). [2]
So a poll that shows that 59% of Americans agree with Obama is cited by Noonan to prove that Obama is out of touch with most Americans.
This is typical of Noonan and Greater Wingnutia in general -- they just “reinterpret” reality to conform to their views. If violence in Iraq goes down it is good news because it shows were winning, if violence goes up, it’s also good news because it shows the terrorists are desperate – “in their last throes.” For them, there is never any bad news from Iraq.
If these polls are correct, however, there might be bad news for them in the next election.
[1] http://blogsforvictory.com/2008/02/09/poll-69-oppose-immediate-withdrawal-from-iraq/
[2] http://tinyurl.com/22dr8a (Obama’s position)
-
Glenn's Jeff Gannon "one-liner"
[Read the article: Chris Wallace: Probing, hard-nosed journalist]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]He's certainly not lacking for credentials.~GG
I wouldn't touch that line with a....
Nope, not gonna do it.
-
These are the lies that are "internalized" by Chris Wallace
[Read the article: The WSJ editorial page lies about our surveillance laws]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This post goes a long way towards explaining why Chris Wallace wasn’t embarrassed about asking Bush about “all the concern in this country about protecting of rights of people who want to kill us" – Wallace, like so many others, have “internalized” the lies of the WSJ editorial page (as well as Fox News reporting) to the extent that they actually believe that “the left” is aiding and abetting the terrorists.
Once this mind set is accepted, the actual laws and all legal issues regarding the “war on terror” are, for them, no longer relevant. It is just another case of “the left” helping Osama.
-
not up to the challenge
[Read the article: The fun and excitement of civilization wars (fought from afar)]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]But listening to the authors of these events martyr themselves by claiming that their crusades are "psychologically exhausting" is really too much to bear.
Hmm. I read Steyn’s comment a bit differently:
A lot of Americans are "over" 9/11, and, while the event had a lingering emotional power, the strategic challenge it exposed has not been accepted by much of the electorate.
I didn’t read it that he (Steyn) was psychologically exhausted, but just those “Americans who are ‘over’ 9/11” – which obviously doesn’t include him.
He, of course, has accepted “the strategic challenge it exposed” and that’s why he stocked up on Cheetos and calls for immediate war against Iran, Syria and anywhere Islamofascism rears its ugly head.
The brave and fearless Steyn is always on “code red” – it’s the commone people, the delusional ones who are thinking of capitulating to the caliphate by voting for Obama who are the ones who are psychological exhausted.
Me, I get psychologically exhausted just trying to get through one of Steyn’s harangues. I can’t work up a good “code yellow” anymore.
But that’s just me – unable to face strategic challenges. Heck, I’ve having trouble with my Sunday morning paper.
-
Obama's "patriotism" problem
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Yes, Obama definitely has a “patriotism” problem: he is not a Republican.
Republicans “own” the flag and patriotism (at least they think they do). This goes back a long way. After a flag-drenched Republican Convention for Ronald Reagan in the eighties, the New York Times reported Republicans expressing outrage that the flag was also being used at the Democratic Convention. So convinced by their own propaganda that this was an exclusively a Republican Party “symbol” that they thought it was unfair that the Democrats use it at all.
This is just a variation on that theme – one that’s worked very well for them over the years.
-
Would a Democratic administration change King's performance?
[Read the article: John King with Mike McConnell: Rare journalistic honesty]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]After several minutes of airing uncontradicted government propaganda, the interview ended and the interviewer profusely thanked the government official for coming on.
I can’t help but wonder just how different this interview would be if it was an official from an Obama administration.
Will we find a suddenly invigorated John King, knowledgeable of the issue at hand, who is quite capable of grilling that administration official with questions premised on right-wing Republican talking points?
If a Democrat takes the White House, I seriously doubt that we will see anything like this “lap-dog” performance because they know that the right-wing media and talk radio extremists would be apoplectic. CNN takes them – and their claims – seriously.
That’s not something they do with “lefty” bloggers (like Greenwald) who are still considered inherently “unserious” and safe for them to ignore.