Letters to the Editor
DCLaw1
Published Letters: 839 Editor's Choice: 2
-
jayackroyd
[Read the article: Your Harry Reid-led Senate in action]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Nothing on this subject in the Edwards interview.
Was I wrong to think there might be? Sometimes there's just not enough time for all questions. Still, if Keith had intended to discuss it with John Edwards, I wish he had given it higher priority than the stupid back-and-forth with O'Reilly and the homeless vets.
Obviously, not to suggest that homeless vets is a trivial issue, but does a spat with Bill-O have to take precedence over very important, substantive issues?
I'm probably making intemperate assumptions again.
-
pluege
[Read the article: Your Harry Reid-led Senate in action]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It really is appalling, though not entirely surprising, that the TV media obsesses over these celebrity exchanges between Obama and the Clintons, while completely neglecting the FISA story.
Seriously, they are treating this Bill-said-Obama-said tripe like the fatuous feuding between Rosie O'Donnell and Donald Trump.
-
What frustrates me, jayackroyd
[Read the article: Your Harry Reid-led Senate in action]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]is that even just symbolic intervention by any one of the big three candidates could be all that is needed to prevent retroactive immunity from being passed. Chris Dodd and the few other brave souls in the Senate need moral support.
An unequivocal endorsement by any of the three Democratic contenders would infuse these holdouts with an enormous boost of salience and weight. Harry Reid, consummate milquetoast institutional conformist that he is, would suddenly "discover" another way of approaching the FISA legislation.
-
pow pow
[Read the article: Your Harry Reid-led Senate in action]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Pardon the repeat posts, but I'm feeling feisty.
You said:
Dodd is prepared to do everything he can tomorrow to stop the Intelligence Committee bill, and is urging his colleagues, in the strongest possible terms, to stand with him to uphold the rule of law. Dodd pointed out that he has never conducted a filibuster before in his entire Senate career.
Now that Chris Dodd is no longer a candidate, his principled stand is nowhere to be seen in the major stories of today, especially on television. What a flattering portrait of our democracy this paints, that when a candidate for president stands on principle, he is analyzed for cynical, political motive; then, when that same man withdraws his candidacy, nary a peep can be heard about his continued march on the formerly calculating course. These media figures seriously cannot think of anything in non-political terms.
Makes me want to curse a blue streak at the state of this joke of a national discourse.
-
O'Reilly and Olbermann
[Read the article: Your Harry Reid-led Senate in action]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm tired, though, of the O'Reilly stuff, both from his own hideous face, and from Olbermann's nightly "feud" with him.
Couldn't agree more. Thing is, in some ways, Countdown hitched its ratings prospects to the strong audience responses to Olbermann's early ridicule of O'Reilly. I think it has proven a fairly profitable formula, and now has become an addiction that threatens to starve the show of what many people like most about it.
I'm also really fed up with the celebrity portion of Countdown, although that goes without saying. Do we need a full 100% of the public to say there's too much tabloid crap in the news before the media starts to listen? Et tu, Olbermann?
It's bad enough that the news has tried to become entertainment -- sometimes I think they're only out to entertain themselves.
-
celery
[Read the article: Your Harry Reid-led Senate in action]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Good night.
Hit the hay.
Right DCLaw1?
Indeed! About my bedtime, too. And Glenn's probably asleep already, time difference and all.
Every time I have time to comment, bastard's already in bed!
-
margalis
[Read the article: Jay Rockefeller's unintentionally revealing comments]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Glenn has referred a few times to US Code 18. What is the relationship between US Code 18 and the actual FISA law, which is part of Code 50? Does code 18 define how violations of Code 50 are prosecuted or something to that effect?
The vast majority of FISA's substantive provisions are in Title 50, but Title 18 includes the provision that makes criminal wiretap warrants (also in Title 18) or FISA foreign intelligence court orders "the exclusive means" for conducting most electronic surveillance. [18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(f)]
The section making it a felony to conduct electronic surveillance in a manner not provided by FISA or criminal warrant procedures is in Title 50 [50 U.S.C. § 1809], not Title 18 where most criminal provisions are located.
If you think that's complicated, the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) makes the U.S. Code look like a Curious George book.
-
Yes
[Read the article: Bill Clinton: The Chris Matthews of South Carolina]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I want to adamantly second everything Glenn has said here. One of the most grating things to me and many others about the Clintons' behavior in this primary process has been their naked sense of entitlement that they (no, not just Hillary) deserve the presidency more than anyone else.
This mentality has been borne out in not only Bill's supposedly extemporaneous comments on the campaign trail, culminating with his egregious comment comparing Obama to Jesse Jackson; the arrogant self-entitlement is also shown vividly with the Clintons' recent attempt to re-legitimize the Florida primary, despite her agreement with the other candidates that they ignore that state due to its calendar maneuvering.
I do believe, however, that their tactics will backfire. As previously noted, many people were strongly disgusted with Bill Clinton's comments in the days before the South Carolina primary. In a rare display of insight, one TV pundit remarked that this scorched-earth tactic had not succeeded in winning white votes for Hillary, but in driving those votes to Edwards. If the Clintons are the political geniuses everyone makes them out to be, they will realize that even the expected short-term gains of their strategy - coming at the expense of long-term political health - may in fact explode in their faces when people actually register their reactions at the polls.