Letters to the Editor
Westmiller
Published Letters: 92
-
Nominees Pick Shadows
[Read the article: Who will Obama choose as veep? Nope, you're wrong]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Presidential nominees pick people they can trust - if they have a choice. Usually, one trusted not to overshadow the Prime Leader. So ...
McCain will pick Lindsey Graham, who has been attached to The Faithful Warrior by an umbilical cord for the past eight years. Wherever John is, there's Lindsey. He's the only prospect with a more dreadful, nasal, shrill speaking style than McCain. The day after his nomination, Lindsey will dutifully disappear in McCain's shadow, doing gopher chores on demand with party regulars.
Obama will pick Dianne Feinstein, not only as a gesture to Hillary, but because she is an elder stateswoman with the kind of soft-peddled, intellectual style that matches Obama's. She has been a stalwart Clinton supporter, but willing to put party - and Obama - first. She isn't a great orator, but she is a consistently successful politician who knows how to play second fiddle and sing the song of unity.
-
A Sort of Self-mutilation
[Read the article: Newt Gingrich, supreme fear-monger]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"I conclude that since men love as they themselves determine but fear as their ruler determines, a wise prince must rely upon what he and not others can control."
Machiavelli
-
Pascal's Wager
[Read the article: Gas prices and offshore drilling ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]A good quarter now, at the risk of financial disaster next year?
The essence of Pascal's wager: it's a better bet to believe in God, because eternal damnation is a big risk.
Of course, the risk - of "financial disaster" or "global warming" - is just as hypothetical as hell.
-
Full-scale Capitulation
[Read the article: George Bush's latest powers, courtesy of the Democratic Congress]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This isn't "capitulation", it's complicity (enthusiastic complicity) in the conversion of the United States from a republic to a totalitarian state.
The Democratic mindset has to be: "I want a good dictator with these powers. Screw the Constitution."
-
That Rancid Framework
[Read the article: Obama's support for the FISA "compromise"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There was absolutely no reason to destroy the FISA framework, which is already an extraordinarily pro-Executive instrument ...
I'm as disappointed as you at Obama's betrayal, but there is every reason to "destroy the FISA framework", even if that isn't politically acceptable either.
FISA created secret courts, hearing secret evidence, decided by judges appointed by the executive, without review, appeal, or even a public acknowledgement of the "probable cause" grounds for domestic wiretaps. It is a complete abrogation of the Constitution and the rule of law.
The only "FISA" rule that should be adopted by Congress is that no agent of the United States may infringe on the privacy of any domestic [national or international] communication, without a showing of probable cause to believe that a specific person is actually engaged in the commission of a crime.
Period.
(That probably won't happen in my lifetime.)
-
Innovative Tactic
[Read the article: Hoyer hails FISA bill as "a significant victory for the Democratic Party"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Hoyer paraphrase: "if we comply with all their demands, then they can't criticize us for anything."
It's the Bush doctrine: give them (the Democrats) everything they want, to "take the issue off the table", and win support for every new executive power imaginable. That's why he vetoed almost nothing in his first six years, but still preserved his "Vote for me or die" campaign slogan.
If the Democrat leadership thinks capitulation is a good campaign tactic, adopted from Republicans, where does it end?
Before the two parties are done, we will have a full-fledged monarchy again. One can only hope that "King Obama" will see fit to not use the powers he would be granted.
-
Why Democrats Caved
[Read the article: Hoyer hails FISA bill as "a significant victory for the Democratic Party"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't have any secret information, but I do know that warrantless monitoring of domestic communications has been going on for decades, under both Republican and Democratic administrations. The form and content of the information gathered has varied, but it was all done without judicial warrants. It was done even before the Supreme Court authorized 'tap and trace' of every domestic communication, since it was "foolish to expect" privacy.
That being the case, it wouldn't surprise me if the telecoms threatened to document all unwarranted wiretaps, through the administrations of Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, and Clinton. So, the political issue was not whether telecoms should be protected, but whether the conduct of Presidents from both parties would be kept a closely-held secret.
From my perspective, that is the only rational reason for the Democrat's capitulation: whose ox would be gored. If they couldn't damn Bush 43 alone for imperial hubris, better to keep the conduct of Democratic Presidents out of the history books.
I doubt that any Congressional leader would ever admit that this fear was what motived their votes and the urgency of granting the telecoms retroactive immunity for violations that had gone on for many decades. Having the respect that I do for Obama, I can't imagine any other kind of threat that would prompt his reversal of position. He certainly doesn't want to see any Clinton's tarred and feathered by such disclosure, which might be the result if the telecoms blabbered the truth.
As I said, I have no evidence. I'm only making a logical extrapolation from the facts I do know. I'd be happy to see some other coherent theory for the overwhelming urgency of voiding the Fourth Amendment. It's certainly not because Democrats want to protect this one errant Republican President.
-
The Clinton Strategy
[Read the article: The Obama campaign's past two weeks]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]... how he thinks he's going to win the election ...
It sounds like the "sweet talk" between Hillary and Obama was built around her advice to follow The Clinton Strategy for victory: compromise, waffle, usurp issues, make a pretense of appeasement and sympathy at every opportunity.
That's how Hillary ran in the primaries, which was foolish. Now, Obama thinks it's going to work for the general?