Letters to the Editor
anonny
Published Letters: 124 Editor's Choice: 13
-
No court would rule against McCain on this
[Read the article: John McCain's Panama problem]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]First off, there are legal precedents on this -- if you Google McCain and Panama you'll find that it was brought up in 2000. And you'll also find that previous court rulings are that a child of Americans born abroad still qualifies.
Secondly, even if there were a good legal case the courts won't go there. In 2000 there was a strong legal challenge to the Bush/Cheney ticket on the grounds that both were residences of the same state, Texas. The Constitution does prohibit that, and Cheney went through the motions to change his state of residence to Wyoming after he selected himself as the VP in late summer 2000. However, he didn't meet the letter of the residency laws.
At the minimum, Cheney should have been tossed off the ticket. But no court would take it seriously. Not on legal grounds so much as they just didn't want to go there.
-
Here's a scary thought ...
[Read the article: Newest Clinton ad plays on security fears]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I tend to agree with those who think that the ad asks a fair question, but that the answer may not favor Clinton.
I've not had a preference among the Democratic field -- all of them have sold their souls to major fund-givers long ago -- but am certainly going to support whomever wins the nomination in the main election.
However, in these past few months Obama has really demonstrated grace under fire on many occasions when he has been put on the spot. If I had to pick someone to manage the "Red Phone" at a moment of extreme emergency, he'd probably be my choice based on his calmness, thoughtfulness, and wisdom. Bill Clinton also has those qualities, but I've not seen that with Hilary or with any of the Republicans. When under pressure they tend to react defensively and emotionally -- not good signs for those who need to coordinate a situation analysis and response.
Of course, *ANY* of the current candidates would rank far better than the current White House occupant in terms of the "Red Phone" test. We saw his leadership abilities on 9/11/01 -- and I would bet that 99% of Americans would have done better than he on that day were they in his position.
-
At least he wasn't poisoning the pigeons ...
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Life is skittles and life is beer." -- Assume this is a reference to the Tom Lehrer classic?
-
If you are the left's equivalent of Ann Coulter then ...
[Read the article: The religion of balance and centrism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]... I expect Time to feature you on the cover, like they did Ann, with a fawning article. I expect to see you on the cable TV news shows at least once a week for the next 10 years, just like they do for her.
Seriously, one must consider that while the elite media pretends to offer "balance" in their reviews the left and the right, the facts is that the right wing extremists are welcome guests in the media household while the left wingers are shunned.
Coulter and Limbaugh have no trouble getting lots of TV face time, and when they do they are treated with respect. You won't find Krugman or Moore on TV a lot. The media begrudingly gave Moore a few interviews when F/911 came out -- but every interview was a string of hostile questions challenging him. And much of the time the interview was followed by a negative, fact-free "review" of his movie.
-
Bias in the eye of the beholder?
[Read the article: Michaels denies "SNL" is pro-Clinton]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Some people tend to see media outlets as biased whenever the outlet presents info that those people don't agree with. I've heard Fox News junkies claim Fox has a "liberal bias" because occasionally Fox offers a news item, such as a Fox News poll, that the Fox News junkie doesn't want to hear.
Unfortunately, over the past two months I've seen a lot of Democrats fall into this same trap -- Obama supporters seeing everything as pro-Clinton and vice versa. Several good liberal blogs have gone way downhill as they have become fully engaged in the Clinton-Obama war.
I haven't done a detailed analysis of SNL's coverage of this campaign, I've only seen a few clips. I expect most people are the same. I've seen some pretty good digs at both sides. The one that sticks with me was anti-Clinton -- something about (paraphrasing) "if I'd known it would have been acceptable to not pretend to support the war, then I wouldn't have pretended to support it."
Generally (not always) SNLs digs are on the money. Remember in 2000, during the recount, they showed views into the two possibilities: the future Bush and the future Gore presidency. The future Gore was boring the American audience with a detailed economic analysis. The future Bush was presiding over a wartime disaster. They sure got that right.