Letters to the Editor
CeliaInSF
Published Letters: 495 Editor's Choice: 4
-
@ jebldmm
[Read the article: Voter suppression in North Carolina?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]My point about the wording is that it could have been clearer. I think at least part of the problem is that the message is so vague and unattributed. Point is- if this non-profit can't get it right- and they're having problems all over - they should fix it or quit trying to do what they're doing if they are ony casuing more problems.
If incompetence is there defense they should get out of their business.
I don't buy your idea that it patronizing to think people will be misled or confused. And there isn't any ill intention needed for people to be confused.
The point of my first post was to get clarity about the apparent contradiction in the defense of this group and your assertions haven't cleared any of that up. Its not paranoid to think that some organizations are out there trying to disenfranchise voters. It happens every election! I'm not saying this group was- I'm just saying this was the first I'd heard of this story and I asked the writer about his convoluted defense of their argument.
And your final point about following the law is simply rediculous. If they can't make a good faith effort to follow the local laws - wouldn't most of this be covered by federal telecom law anyway? - then they don't belong in the business of mass-calling. Period.
-
@ jebldmm again
[Read the article: Voter suppression in North Carolina?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"@comandantedavid
But you figured it out, didn't you? Your wife is bright enough to know that she moved 3 years ago and has already re-registered at her new address."
So why should the onus be on the person receives the call or mailer? If the real purpose is to inform and get out the vote why the shady tactics? Why do you have to read the fine print or even figure out the sender at all?!?
If I though it was appropriate to mislead and disemmble to people "for their own good" I would be switch parties!
-
@Tigerboy
[Read the article: Hillary Clinton's big, brass ... fortitude]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]@ Tigerboy and others who pointed out that Obama supported a similar gas tax holiday in the Illinois Senate.
On Meet the Press this morning, Tim Russert asked the same and Obama acknowledged those votes and said :
SEN. OBAMA: And, and that's my point. I voted for it, and then six months later we took a look, and consumers had not benefited at all, but we had lost revenue.
MR. RUSSERT: So you learned from a wrong vote.
SEN. OBAMA: Yeah, I learned from a mistake. And, in addition, what happens is, is that this would come out of the Federal Highway Fund that we use to rebuild our roads and our bridges. And if we don't have that fund, then we're looking at thousands of jobs being lost in Indiana and in North Carolina.
That's straight from the transcipr of the show -vhttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24445166/
-
What Taritac said
[Read the article: How Hillary Clinton botched the black vote]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Clinton could have - should have - helped to put the Wright thing to a rest by denouncing the media attacks and explaining how Wright was one the respected preachers asked to give Bill spiritual guidance after he confessed to screwing around with Lewinsky. Instead she chose to pile on - confirming that she was ready to carry on with the Rovian tactics and was willing to win at all costs. (In fairness she may not have wanted to bring up Bill's sex scandals - and who could blame her- but she could have found another way to bring issues back to the table instead of piling on.)
I don't think the Clintons are racists - just opportunist that know a lot of Americans are racists and willing to benefit from that. That strikes me as worse than straight up bigotry that could be blamed on ignorance.
-
@KateTex
[Read the article: How Hillary Clinton botched the black vote]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Are you suggesting that the article you posted is written with a tongue planted in cheek? Otherwise, I just don't get how that supports your position that it is the Obama campaign that is bringing race to the fore. I don't see any quote in there from Obama that is shrill or reactionary - just that some folks were offended by her remarks. He didn't even say *he* was offended. This after he was pressed by the press for a response. I just don't ge thow this supports your argument. It would seem to directly undermine it.
In regards to your questions - of what Clinton would have to gain from alienating the African American vote? I would guess - the Schaller article were talking about would support it- was that she had written off the AA community prematurely and decided to push a wedge between them and the working class white voters she has been wooing. That she would try to force a wedge in the grand Rovian tradition between these constituencies betting on those who are likely to vote republican in the GE doesn't speak well to her strategic capabilities or her character.
-
Sorry KateTex
[Read the article: How Hillary Clinton botched the black vote]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You really can't forbid me from saying anything. That is cute though- LOL.
Does the Rove thing just cut too close too the bone?
You didn't respond to the fact that the article you posted completely undermines your argument.
-
@rwanderman
[Read the article: How Hillary Clinton botched the black vote]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Yes. Exactly. Rovian.
-
@ luminesce
[Read the article: Hillary Clinton throws economists off the bus]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Your point is well taken -but I don't think any serious person would disagree that lots of people are hurting right now and that that needs to be addressed. Also there are a lot of policies that look good on paper - to the experts - that hurt regular people that are dismissed with the same regard of those we call collateral damage in our combat operations. However, I think the point here and the reason anyone who is not supporting Hillary is resoundingly against the plan is that it is a clear pander. Or worse than a clear pander since it wouldn't't even result in an amount of money in your pocket to make it worth it.