Letters to the Editor
The Small Town Hick
Published Letters: 75 Editor's Choice: 1
-
Authoritarian Submission and the Clinton Years
[Read the article: The right-wing brain in action]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I just finished reading the MYDD article linked to in the Greenwald post.
One little point - if the typical RWA typically submits to authority, then what explains the Clinton years?
-
20% is not a fringe
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You said "The hard-core 20% Bush followers (the ones who not only approve of the Leader's performance but who strongly approve) simply do not live in reality, literally. They want to believe that Americans support the ongoing occupation of Iraq, so no polling data, election slaughters, or anything else will ever convince them otherwise.
Ultimately, not only is it impossible for anyone to force them to recognize reality, it is also -- at this point -- undesirable. Their refusal to recognize reality is precisely what is going to ensure their destruction as a political movement, and at this point, given that our troops are inevitably staying in Iraq through the end of the Bush presidency, there is no higher priority than that."
I'm a little alarmed about the idea that one out of every five Americans follow a corrupted worldview. I do not see this as a fringe group. We're talking about over one million people. Revolutions have been caused by smaller groups.
I believe that we must work harder at either changing their worldview, or changing its focus away from the neoconservative value set, if this country is going to survive as a positive political entity.
-
The Fractured base = a new party?
[Read the article: Is Rush Limbaugh right?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Over the last year I've been wondering about the future of the Republicans - specifically, the future of the hard core 29% that still support the Rove-Cheney plan. If the Republican base did fracture, I wonder if the Twenty Nine would form a new party? They certainly don't have much in common with the policies and needs of the rest of the country, or of their candidates.
It might make good democratic sense for the 29% to run the Cheney-Lieberman ticket for 2008, allowing the rest of us to run candidates with sane positions.
-
But WHY do we stay?
[Read the article: Improvement in Iraq: Trust Joe Klein and his secret sources]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In the great discourse on the pros and cons of the Iraq War, there is one question that is not being asked. "Could there be another reason besides pride that the US has not pulled out of Iraq?"
For instance, the billions of dollars being paid out to contractors with no oversight?
For instance, the massive growth of "security groups" run by people with strong neocon ties?
Maybe it's time someone followed the old adage and "followed the money".
-
Another actor as president?
[Read the article: Yes, and we'll miss seeing Rudy in drag]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So now a person who makes a living pretending to be someone he's not, is running for President.
What is it about modern politics, that people prefer shadow to substance? Are they that jaded by politics that they will vote for someone who merely looks competent?
-
Israel vs. America
[Read the article: Joe Lieberman, warmongering centrist]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I am not quite up to speed on my Sun Tsu, but I'm sure that somewhere in the Art of War you will find the statement "If the ultimate art of war is to win without fighting, the number two art is to get someone else to do your fighting for you."
I find it difficult to believe how much this country listens to Israel, listens to the point where they put that country's welfare before their own. Why hasn't someone called them on this? Why isn't someone asking THEM "Why do you hate America so much?"
-
Size of the GOP
[Read the article: The GOP is the party of the Iraq war]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If the GOP base is pro-War and pro-Bush, . . .
and he polling numbers for the war and Bush are way down, . . .
then just how small is the GOP Base, anyway?
Is there any hope for a GOP win next election with such a small Base?
-
Shame? Acknowledgement? Much too real, thank you!
[Read the article: Kit Bond and the credibility of war supporters]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"It just plods along with the same idiot slogans and the same people spouting them. And they do it with no shame, no acknowledgment of their own past behavior, and no loss of credibility."
Past behavior is a part of reality, Glenn.
You remember what these people think about the "reality-based community", don't you?
-
The Elephant in the Room
[Read the article: War, chaos and Bush's faith]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The one thing this article did not take into account is the Apocalyptic visions of some members of the Religious Right - for whom Bush has shown a lot of affinity.
Could Bush's ultimate aim be the Apocalypse?
-
An anniversary
[Read the article: Ari Fleischer: It gets worse]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I am suprised that neither you nor any of Salon's other columnists have noticed that this is the anniversary of the executions of anarchists Sacco and Vanzetti, who were executed for the crime of being Italian and immigrants at a time when Italian immigrants were all thought of as terrorists.
Wikipedia has a good article. Suffice it to say, if you replace "italian" with "muslim", you get a painful reminder that today's climate of hate and fear is nothing new in this country.
Or, to put it another way, (quote from Wikipedia),
"The judge in the case, Webster Thayer, stated to the jury "This man, (Vanzetti) although he may not have actually committed the crime attributed to him, is nevertheless culpable, because he is the enemy of our existing institutions."
-
Bullies
[Read the article: The GOP's crowded closet]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There's another aspect to the closetted-gays-become-Republican argument.
If you don't want people to think you are gay, you act "manly". You strut, you hunt, you make gay jokes and, most of all, you insult and laugh at anyone who suggests you are gay. Preferably with a bunch of yahoo friends who will laugh right along with you.
This fits the Republicans perfectly. The bullying, the laughter, the covering up for one of their own.
Democrats would insist that a gay politician come out. Republicans would insist he stay in. If you were ashamed to be gay, which party would you join?
-
So THAT'S why they do it!
[Read the article: Dianne Feinstein -- Bush's key ally in the Senate -- to support telecom amnesty]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Your note that Feinstein and her hubby make much moolah off the corporate powers that be may answer a question I've had for a long time - exactly WHY the Democrats are so submissive to Republican policies.
Could it be that they are not so much afraid of being called names by the Beltway Elite, as they are of being cut off from the post-Congressional gravy train of symbolic vice-presidencies and board memberships?