Letters to the Editor
Bod-a-getta
Published Letters: 44
-
Plan B
[Read the article: The GOP's loyalty oath]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Everybody should be encouraged to vote in both parties' primaries. While as a Democrat, it's likely that I will vote for whichever candidate emerges from the field versus whatever Republican is victorious on that side. But if my "Plan A" candidate doesn't win in November 2008, shouldn't I have the right to have a say in who the most acceptable "Plan B" candidate should be? If I can't have Hillary, Obama, Edwards or whoever from the (D) column as my President, why shouldn't I be able to voice my opinion that Candidate X from the (R) is the least repugnant of the bunch? Perhaps I could tolerate a Ron Paul presidency, whereas the idea of a Guiliani or Romney presidency nauseates me. Shouldn't I have this right to affect BOTH sides of the ballot in the general election?
And for what it's worth, Republicans could use the same logic to vote against Hillary. It's a free country. This approach would ensure that candidates of both parties would have to appeal to moderates on the other side of the fence and not be a demagogue. Moderation is what this country desperately needs.
-
All religions are cults....
[Read the article: American politics in bad faith]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...it's just that the ones with larger "mainstream" followings get to classify those on the margins as cults. If 90% of Americans were Mormon, the Southern Baptists, Catholics and everybody else would be called the kooks.
-
Lots of free time
[Read the article: Contempt for Rove, Bolten]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What kind of person has the time to make over a dozen posts to a single thread over the course of a day (and is probably doing the same to several others which I haven't read)? To engage in this kind of behavior, one must be: 1) retired and in desperate need of another hobby that gets you out into the sunshine and fresh air, 2) a hired gun copying and pasting pre-packaged responses downloaded from some secret RNC website, 3) or somebody who's bilking their employer out of a lot of productivity. Pretty sad whatever the story.
Would love to stick around and see if there's a response, but I have a life outside message boards.
-
The reverse is also true
[Read the article: What do evangelicals want?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The commonly voiced stereotype that liberals all are: 1) sushi-eating, French fluent, all-black-wearing elitists living in NYC and Hollywood, or 2) lazy, illegal immigrant coddling, slack-jawed and glassy-eyed civil service workers who check the mailbox every day for their next government handout is just as wrong.
I found this article fascinating because it supports what I have always believed. There are indeed good people with conservative leanings and being religious doesn't necessarily mean that you spend all your free time protesting gay pride parades and abortion clinics. Those who stereotype and incite hatred and intolerance of those "losers" on the other side of the aisle have had control of the microphone for far too long. Perhaps if the vast majority of us in the middle with some degree of common sense could figure out how to mute the 10% lunatic fringe at both ends of the political spectrum, we just might have a fighting chance to save this country.
-
What if?
[Read the article: McCain wins, and conservative heads explode]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The posts in this blog lead me to believe that, if Hillary is the Democratic nominee, a fair percentage might actually vote for McCain instead. We know Republicans, regardless of how unhappy they may be with McCain, would rather roll around in a bathtub filled with razor blades and lemon juice than vote for Hillary. So the (R) votes would certainly be locked up solid for McCain. Given the passion on both sides (the anybody but Hillary crowd vs. the disgusted by the past seven years crowd), I predict a massive turnout from both sides, which effectively results in a draw. But if the the disaffected anti-Hillary (D) crossover votes are sizeable, it would certainly make the contest close.
So what if McCain is savvy enough to realize how many Democrats aren't relishing the prospect of Prez Hillary? What would he need to do to siphon off the "hate the idea, but will hold my nose and vote for Hillary" votes? One idea would be to nominate Obama or Edwards as his Veep. Not saying this is likely, but what happens under that scenario? Would such a gesture be enough to lure reluctant Democrats to vote for McCain and tip the balance? Or would the measure of respect he would almost certainly gain from liberals and moderates for making such a symbolic gesture be offset by "take no prisoners" conservatives who are anathema to the concepts of compromise and bipartisanship? I honestly don't know.
-
@Anonymous 10:26 a.m.
[Read the article: McCain wins, and conservative heads explode]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I agree that the scenario is unlikely for precisely the reasons you stated. But what if McCain were to somehow present a very convincing offer to Obama or Edwards that he wants and needs a divergent viewpoint to help heal the nation, build bridges to Congress, etc.? Would their sense of national service override party loyalty? Or from the perspective of personal ambition, would the opportunity of serving as VP, thus providing a HUGE leg up in the next presidential campaign, be too tempting to pass up? Of course, this would presume that the McCain presidency would at least be moderately successful and not an albatross around their necks (Exhibit A - early speculation about the rise of Colin Powell and Condaleeza Rice, quickly decimated by the miasma of the W regime).