Letters to the Editor
matttroke
Published Letters: 44 Editor's Choice: 7
-
disturbing? yes. unwarranted? hard to tell.
[Read the article: Know your rights: The Kerry Taser incident]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Seems like everyone in this scene either overreacted or reacted very badly. When security started moving the questioner away from the microphone, it just looked like a typical case of security intervening with an audience member more interestd in being disruptive than in asking questions. Anyone who's ever been to one of these things shouldn't really have any problem with that. The kid seriously overreacted by hollering about how he was getting arrested; it looked like he was just getting kicked out of the forum. When he resisted, got tackled, tasered and handcuffed, that's when security crossed the line. And the audience clapping was more than a little unnecessary.
-
Other good questions rarely asked...
[Read the article: The questions they ask]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Pot to Kettle: "Why are you so black?"
Guy hit with stone to Guy who lives in glass house: "Did you just throw a rock at me? Really?"
-
check your facts - its in the Times
[Read the article: The Ron Paul phenomenon]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Usually, condemnation of the MSM's blindness to everything that isn't orthodoxy is fine by me. But when you're wrong, you're wrong. According to the Today's Paper link on the NY Times website, an article on Ron Paul's big day appears on page A20.
-
this veto was all about schip
[Read the article: Congress to Bush: We're relevant, too]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Now, when Congress passes a new version of SCHIP, Bush vetos, and Congress fails to override, Bush can point to this water bill as an example of a truly bipartisan, but in his view misguided, bill. SCHIP, by comparison, will be painted as a partisan concoction of the Dems.
-
this is all about getting to the convention
[Read the article: Clinton math]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Clinton is not dumb. I can't believe she would choose this tactic only to hurt her opponent in the general or because she thinks it will get her leverage or because she's evil. The fact remains that she still has a chance to win this thing, not by winning primaries and convincing superdelegates, but because pledged delegates and superdelegates all have the option to change their vote at the convention.
If the magic number remains 2024 and if the superdelegates make their decision in the next few weeks such that Obama gets a pledge of 2024 delegate, then if Clinton does anything but concede, she looks terrible and loses whatever support she currently has. But if there is an argument that Obama hasn't yet clinched, even if it looks like he has, then Clinton can still take it to the convention and attempt to change the minds of all of the delegates. Its an unlikely scenario, but not impossible, and one that's not open to her if the goal is 2024.
-
This is all they could come up with?
[Read the article: Does Obama have a lobbyist problem too?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]A "lobbyist" for a U.S. territory and an advertising/PR executive? The horror.
-
Call it what it is
[Read the article: Why McCain's gas tax proposal is a good idea]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think we've all missed the best way to refute this silly tax reduction and take away the potential political advantage all at once. McCain and the media insist on calling this a "gas tax holiday," which implies that the holiday is for the consumer of gas, i.e. the driver, rather than for the producer of the gas, i.e. the giant wealthy corporate gas company. So how about from here on out instead of calling this thing a "gas tax holiday," we call it a "Tax Break for Oil Companies." For example, Mr. McLoughliStephonapaMatthews could ask Senator McCain: "You've called for a Summer Tax Break for Oil Companies. How does lower taxes for Oil Companies help drivers at the pump?" While we're at it, Obama could say something like: "Rather than give a Summer Tax Break to Oil Companies, I'd like to require that whenever gas prices rise by an $.10, Oil Companies disclose how much profit is made on the backs, or wheels, of the American consumer.
Refute the idea that the tax break helps? Done. Take away political advantage? Done. Do something that might actually lower prices? Done.
-
What Criticism?
[Read the article: Conservatives angry at Bush over his statement of regret]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Bush criticized his choice of words because he thought it may have made him seem bellicose? Whatever. He didn't criticize his own bellicosity, or anything else of substance. This is in the vein of apologies for other people being offended. Its not an apology at all. The world should be apoplectic (still) about his being warlike, not about his sounding warlike.
-
VP?
[Read the article: Clark feels the heat, but stands his ground]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I assume this is his pitch to be chosen VP, yes?
1. Point out that McCain has no executive or military policy experience.
2. Simultaneously causing others to raise the idea that Obama doesn't either.
3. But highlighting how much experience of exactly that kind that Clark has himself.
4. All while showing how tough and smart he is.
If only he hadn't shown himself to be such a dismal campaigner during his 2004 run.
-
"if you've seen her star turn in house of wax"
[Read the article: Well, I know who I'm voting for]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There are people who have seen House of Wax?
-
Correlation vs. Causation
[Read the article: The big convention bounce]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I hope we are all smart enough not to think that this means that something at the convention causes the bump in the polls. An equally valid justification might be that the convention of the candidate more likely to win from the outset gets more attention paid to it by the electorate leading to a bigger bump in the polls for that candidate.
Also, I hope we're also smart enough not to think that the sample size is meaningful or that there's any reason to think that the polls are conducted in a way consistent enough to give anyone a clear idea of what they aggregately mean.
Essentially, Nate Silver and Mark Penn have cited a meaningless statistic to give weight to what may or may not be a meaningless event. I'm not saying the conventions are meaningless. I'm just saying that this little stat doesn't prove that they're meaningful.
-
greed is hard to legislate against
[Read the article: Does McCain really oppose golden parachutes?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]McCain's opposition to golden parachutes and lack of position on how to deal with them is emblematic of McCain's probably ineffectiveness against financial shenanigans. The paradigm that's emerged from the two sides in response to the Lehman/Merrill/AIG meltdowns is that McCain thinks Wall Street is greedy and corrupt, and Obama thinks regulatory mechanisms should be tightened. But McCain offers no solutions to fight greed, because basically there are none. His whole economic/governmental/tax/etc. plan is based on individual responsibility. But governments can't make individuals better. The best they can do is realign incentives to give individuals reasons to act better, i.e. regulate. That's why conservatism is a failure; its inconsistent with pragmatism.