Letters to the Editor
Shiral
Published Letters: 312 Editor's Choice: 2
-
Poor Queen Elizabeth!
[Read the article: The impertinent prince]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm never going to claim Britain's Royal family is perfect. However, I do have some affection for the queen. She at least knows how to behave with appropriate dignity in public, especially on grand occasions. (I suppose she could hardly help knowing this after living in Buckingham Palace for approximately seventy years.)
George Bush is clueless about how to behave appropriately in any setting more formal than a barbecue. He is a national embarrassment. I suppose we also now know whom he and Mrs. Bush consider the most important people in America to invite to a white tie dinner.2009 can't come quickly enough!
Melissa Houle
-
HOORAY FOR ELIZABETH!!!
[Read the article: Ann Coulter gets what she deserves]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]She NAILED Coulter, forcefully, but politely and showed what a courageous, classy woman she is--and Coulter definitely ISN'T. I can only say that if Ann Coulter had publically wished MY spouse would be "assassinated in a terrorist plot" I certainly wouldn't have spoken as politely to that person as Mrs. Edwards spoke to Coulter. That was an object lesson in how to stand up for yourself and take the high road at the same time.
After all the insults and uncivil language she's flung at everyone she disagrees with, Coulter RICHLY deserved the humiliation on camera yesterday and it was sweet to watch. Now all she needs are about two million more public instances of people calling her on her public nastiness. MAYBE then she'll start to realize such behavior doesn't wash. I'm not holding my breath that it will happen, but I hope other people follow in Elizabeth Edwards' footsteps in this matter
I sure wish it were Coulter with the stage four Breast Cancer, and not Elizabeth!
-
Good One!
[Read the article: "Even Richard Nixon knew it was time to resign"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Bravo, Keith Olberman!
-
Just One Word:
[Read the article: Edwards bows out, but stays on message on the way]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Dammit!
I wish he'd waited until after Super Tuesday!
And if I'd had any idea he was going to do this today, I sure wouldn't have given his campaign fifty bucks last week!
So long, "Mr. Commitment."
Melissa Houle
-
Here's how I feel about Nader
[Read the article: What will Nader say on "Meet the Press"?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If I were standing on a street corner with a bucket of water and Ralph Nader was to spontaneously combust right there, I'd throw the water on him. Really, I would. The second I finished cooking my marshmallow.
Nader does not bear the only blame for 2000, but I'm damned well not going to let him off the hook for the portion of responsibility that IS his. President Gore would not have lied to the world to start a war we didn't need over weapons that weren't there. And we would not have a presidential administration that balked every effort to deal with the real dangers of global warming. Torture? Extraordinary Rendition? Nope, we wouldn't be doing those things. We wouldn't have had an Attorney General who believes that decent treatment of POWs is "Quaint." And maybe, President Gore would have paid rather more attention to that PDB of August 6, 2001.
Sorry Ralph, your day is done. Your credibility is shot, and no one wants you. You might have legitimate issues to bring up, but you can bring them up without flaunting your mammoth ego which is about 20 sizes too large for your runty frame.
-
So Where Was Ralph in January?
[Read the article: Dems condemn Nader]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Fine, so, he's running again. Not particularly worried, since his effect in 2004 was negligible. That was before the Hurricane Katrina fiasco, and before the country REALLY went sour on Iraq AND on Bush, so I expect the "Nader Effect" to be even tinier and less consequential, in this cycle. But we're being asked to believe it's NOT egotistical grandstanding that Nader waited until there were only a few primaries left to enter the race with a "Look at ME!" Splash? Yeah, Right!
Frankly, Nader's like an athlete who insists he should be allowed to join a marathon at the thirteen mile mark, then can't figure out why the REAL contestants, who were there at the starting line for the Iowa Caucus in January and before are furious with him! Were Nader willing to start where and when every other candidate did and a demonstrated a willingness to try to win people's votes with the same grunt-work campaigning that ALL the other candidates have had to do, I might not like him any better, or vote for him, but I wouldn't contest his right to run every Election cycle. (Oh wait, maybe starting a campaign when the others do would require more money than "Mr. I'm so pure" can raise.) My objection is not because I don't think Nader has valid issues to bring up, I do. I also believe Kucinich has valid issues, but I'm more willing to listen to Kucinich because he DOES join the race before the Iowa and New Hampshire contests and puts the same work into his run that all other candidates do. When Nader enters the race almost at the end of Primary Season, I DO question his motives and whether he deserves the courtesy of being invited to debate with candidates who had to work a lot harder and a lot longer for their party's nominations than he was willing to do.
Just one more thing--I really can't stand Nader's moralistic finger-wagging "I'm doing this for your own good" lecture mentality. For that reason alone, I'd never vote for him. I voted against Dubya in 2000 because I genuinely believed he would be a terrible president. And he has exceeded my worst fears. No matter how low my expectations and opinion of him, Bush has always managed to tunnel under them. An election year is long--two terms of a lousy president is far longer, and the cost to our country has been disastrous. Sorry Ralph, it really DOES matter who wins.