Letters to the Editor
sorenreport
Published Letters: 79 Editor's Choice: 7
-
Rove's selective brain
[Read the article: Rove: You'll all see Bush's wisdom eventually]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The Bush doctrine states that "countries that make nice with terrorists should be treated like them." Funny, I don't see Pakistan or Saudi Arabia getting the Iraq treatment.
Then again, Iraq didn't make nice with the "terrorists," so now I'm really confused. I'm sure the historians of the future will sort it all out, right Karl?
-
Do you have to watch?
[Read the article: Forcing pre-abortion peek at ultrasound]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]After the good people of South Carolina strip off a pregnant woman’s (or girl’s) clothes, strap her to a gurney, and smear goo on her abdomen (or insert the probe in her vagina), do you think they will make her actually look at the ultrasound? Perhaps they will force her eyes open by attaching the contraption used in a final scene in A Clockwork Orange.
Don’t say it can’t happen here.
-
Did the author read the Time survey?
[Read the article: Al Gore, anyone?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The percentages for Hillary, Obama, Guiliani, and McCain actually fluctuated over the weeks that the survey was taken. At different points, the Democrats led the Republicans, and vice versa. Statisticaly the differences are insignificant.
Only in the last week did Guiliani go ahead of Hillary by 9 points and - let's be real - Guiliani is more likely to be headed for jail - along with his cohort Bernie Kerik - than the White House. Hillary beat him before in New York and can do it again.
Note also that 33% of the respondents approve of the job Bush is doing, revealing them to be more pro-Republican than most Americans.
-
Doesn't make sense
[Read the article: Mitt Romney reiterates stance against gay marriage]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If Mitt is OK with single individuals as parents and other legitimate, though "less-than-ideal" child-raising arrangements, then why not let same-sex couples marry? What is to be gained by expressly forbidding certain children from being raised by married parents? Or conversely, what harm will be caused by allowing their parents to marry?
In a way, the child issue is one of the best reasons to approve of gay marriage. If a family headed by a married couple is best for children, then what business does the state have in preventing same-sex couples from marrying? What Mitt and others forget is that same-sex couples have already formed families - with and without children. The issue is whether we treat all families equally. I could never understand the idea that allowing gays to form legal families will somehow destroy families. In truth, people oppose gay marriage simply because they are uncomfortable with gay people. This is why young people are more tolerant in this matter. Letting gays marry “humanizes” homosexuals (thank you, Bill O’Reilly) and eliminates one of the perceived benefits of being heterosexual. The child issue is a useful red herring that should be slapped down. It would be nice if someone would ask Mitt what damage has Massachusetts incurred as a result of the legalization of gay marriage. Waiting . . .
-
A better follow-up
[Read the article: Accountability? Libby? Gonzales? Let me tell you about 9/11]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I wish the reporter had a better follow-up. In fact, Bush did NOT hold Libby accountable - the US justice system (such as it is) did. Also, perjury is not the only issue with Gonzales. He admitted to Congress that there are problems in the Justice Department, that he screwed up the US Attorney firings, that he delegated important personnel matters to unqualified underlings who based decisions on political affiliation - in flagrant violation of the law, and that his department attempted to smear the Attorneys who resisted or requested time to finish important corruption cases. Isn’t that enough?
-
Changing minds?
[Read the article: Mitt who?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's really tough for conservatives and some liberals to accept that Hillary is changing people's opinion of her, just as she did in NY. These negative feelings are the result of a very successful right-wing smear job that even some Democrats have internalized - not surprising, given our sadistic propensity for contributing to the destruction of our own candidates. Remember how Al Gore was no different than Bush and the parties are the same? Remember how many votes Ralph Nader took from Gore? Enough to make him "lose."
I'm probably more liberal that Hillary, but I also recognize that - get this - no candidate is perfect. Do you really think the average Republican voter LIKES Bush? They don't, but they held their noses and voted for the guy - and still refrain from criticizing him. Democrats shouldn't follow their leaders blindly, but Democrats have let their ideals and candidates be defined negatively (Carter is incompetent, Dukakis is a wimp, Gore is a lier, Kerry is a flip-flopper) - without fighting back - and sometimes even joining in the assault.
Either all Democrats get behind the individual who prevails in the primary - or you can say hello to President Romney. And don't think he can't do it. Once he wins the primary, Romney will re-center himself, just as he did in Massachusetts. It can happen here.