Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 542 Editor's Choice: 79
-
In One and a half Sentences--
[Read the article: Lewis Libby owes his freedom to our corrupt political elite]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]--GG sums up this low dishonest decade:
"The political press -- the function of which was envisioned by the Founders to investigate and hold accountable the most politically powerful -- now fulfill the exact oppose purpose in our country. They are slavishly protective of our highest political officials,"
Today's rancid example, from the NYT:
"Bush Is Said to Have Held Long Debate on Decision
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG and JIM RUTENBERG
Published: July 4, 2007
WASHINGTON, July 3 — Before commuting the prison sentence of I. Lewis Libby Jr., President Bush and a small circle of advisers delved deeply into the evidence in the case, debating Mr. Libby’s guilt or innocence and whether he had in fact lied to investigators, people familiar with the deliberations said."
-
Doppelganger
[Read the article: Rudy Giuliani, unscripted]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Okay, he's not only a bully like Bush, as many New Yorkers know from his pre-9/11 sainthood, now it's clear that he's also as incoherent and stumbling as Bush. Oh the humanity!
-
Question for Julia Dahl
[Read the article: Leahy and Conyers blast back at White House "stonewalling"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Julia:
We need context. Has this ever happened before? Has a President claimed executive privilege for former aides? Has he won?
Thanks.
-
Dowd Creep
[Read the article: Hillary is from Mars, Obama is from Venus]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I thought that Maureen Dowd had cornered the market on inanity about Obama, deriding him as "Obambi" and hairless and unmasculine. Apparently not, since she has a big fan in Michael Scherer, whose piece is as tendentious and silly as the fluff she passes off as deep insight. Haven't we seen enough of this crap already? What's next, Scherer's breathless account of their signature scents, à la Chris Matthews? Or maybe he can do a Shopping with the Candidates column or invite them to a day spa and see which treatments they go for--now wouldn't that be thrilling!
-
The Dowd Factor
[Read the article: Dear Readers]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's intriguing to me that Michael Scherer mentions Maureen Dowd in his response, but didn't do so in his original article--and therein lies some of the problem.
Dowd has been beating the drum on this subject, not just dissing Obama as unmasculine, but Edwards, too. Had Scherer been more thoughtful, he would have distinguished in his original piece between his insights and Dowd's, or tried to, anyway. He would have shown himself to be much more careful and not just another journalist jumping on the Dowd bandwagon. Her discourse continues to infect the political scene. She never apologized for faking the Kerry NASCAR quote, was never called out for it by the NYT, and now is peddling an image of Obama that some people might find charming or funny, but that plays into the stereotypical distinction of Democrats as weak on defense compared to the tough guy Republicans. You can't swim in this polluted pool and not get dirty; hence the justifiable and intelligent outrage from Salon readers.
-
It's a rhetorical front
[Read the article: Why David Vitter matters]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Joan, I don't believe she's "calm, forgiving." Watch the tape again--look at her body language, look at her face--she is depressed, furious, ashamed. And even her clothing doesn't match "calm, forgiving"--she's wearing an animal print. Camille Paglia would need to analyze the layers of irony there.
-
Rather Glib Report
[Read the article: What you missed while watching "Ask a Ninja"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What Scherer missed was the outpouring of passion and compassion from the whole range of candidates.
They could not have been more different en bloc from the GOP candidates, each of whom tried to be more macho and punitive than the next. The discussion of Darfur was particularly important and strong last night, with several candidates having been to the refugee camp where a video question was filmed.
The Democrats offered as a group an entirely humanistic vision of how to govern and what individuals mean; the GOP in its forums has offered fear, threats, and punishment. Yes, the format isn't conducive to substantive enough discussion, even this new format, but the stark differences between the parties are being thrown into very high relief.
-
Fielding
[Read the article: "Becoming Jane"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Given Austen's racy juvenilia, her wit, her wide reading, and the fact that you would be vastly uneducated if you didn't know Fielding, Smollett, Sterne in that period, it's just plain dumb that someone has to introduce her to Tom Jones, and that she's shocked. Reading that in two reviews has put me off the movie completely; it means that the screenwriter and director don't really care about more than surfaces (Empire waistlines, etc.). It's as false to the period as Kate Winslet giving someone the finger in "Titanic."
-
McCain?
[Read the article: The Republicans debate]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Tim, I know it's sometimes hard to tell those GOPers apart, but
watch the clip--it's Romney who raised 9/11 twice when Paul was protesting:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/
-
Feinstein should be ousted
[Read the article: More on the FISA debacle]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Diane Feinstein is a mystery to me. How could anyone who has bothered reading the newspapers (let's forget the blogs) for the last six years trust the word of this government on any single issue? To paraphrase Mary McCarthy on Lillian Hellman: "every word they say is a lie, including 'and' and 'the'.
-
Underwhelming
[Read the article: How strong is the Democratic presidential field?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]All three of these candidates, though they can at times rise above mediocrity, fail to be inspiring. I just finished Lynne Olson's "Troublesome Young Men" and was struck by the poetic intensity of so many of the Tories speaking in Parliament against Chamberlain and his disastrous policies. Not one of these three "top-tier" candidates has the power of a figure as little known to Americans as Leo Amery. Closer to home, in this same period, there's FDR hitting major points home simply, powerfully, evocatively in speech after speech (check out jean Smith's new FDR) and every keen line makes me lament that we lack figures who can speak to the head and the heart simultaneously, without sounding like every phrase has been weighed by a team of consultants. The Big Three lack vision, and that worries me.
-
Heterosexist
[Read the article: Don't ask, don't tell]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Tim, I think your reaction to Kucinich is regrettable, but typical in this culture. He spoke, warmly and affectively. I found his remarks sincere and moving and from the heart. But men aren't supposed to speak like that in this culture, unless they've just come through some devastating tragedy, and then, they're only allowed to mumble "I love you." to a family member, Dad, or buddy. Anything else is suspect.