Letters to the Editor
rrk1
Published Letters: 252 Editor's Choice: 43
-
'Knowing' doesn't mean she told him.
[Read the article: What Bush really knew about Harriet Miers]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Far be it from me to defend our ignorant, shallow, self-delusionary poor excuse for a president, but in a rare instance of candor Bush might actually have been telling the truth, hard as that is for him, when he said he hadn't ever discussed Mier's views on abortion with her. That certainly doesn't mean he is unaware of her views, either from the now public questionnaire, or other sources who are familiar with her and/or her views. They just never talked about it. I can believe that. I doubt he talks about anything other than baseball scores and his multiple daily workouts.
The brilliant dissembling of this regime is hall marked by its ability to retain a fig leaf of credibility and a vestige of truth in broadcasting its propaganda on a daily basis. This is just one example.
-
The Expectations Dance
[Read the article: Plame speculation: It's Libby. It's Rove. It's Hadley. It's later]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What has changed about the fundamentals in this case? We have a Republican prosecuter, working with a Republican (so-called) Justice Department is investigating a tightly scripted Republican White House known for its ability to retaliate and punish dissenters. Will Patrick Fitzgerald make himself into a dissenter as well? I have a problem believing that. Much as I would like to see Cheney, Rover and Libby frog marched out of the White House, I'm not holding my breath.
More likely is the invisible hand of the Republican propaganda machine stoking and stroking the expectations of a salivating media establishment just waiting and hoping for a volcanic political explosion after Fitzgerald reveals all. Hum. More likely we'll see an anticlimatic fizzling firecracker when some relatively unimportant underling somewhere in the White House basement takes the rap, falls on his sword, and the whole business is spun into much ado about not very much. Then Cheney, et al, can go back to what they do so well: spinning the country into oblivion.
Of greater concern, I believe, is the role of Judith Miller and the so-called management of the New York Times. She should be frog marched out of the Times newsroom, with TV cameras on, and banished from using the title 'reporter' forever. Likewise the Sulzberger family, owners of the Times, should reconsider the occupier of their publishing throne, 'Pinch' as he is less than affectionately known (his father was 'Punch'). Between Jason Blair and Judith Miller he has soiled the Times' reputation beyond redemption. We expect, unfortunately, the worst from our politicians, but the media should present more integrity and transparency than the Times has in this sordid affair.
-
Spin, Spin, Spin
[Read the article: Is Miers on her way out?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Nothing this White House does should be taken at face value. They are spinning us into oblivion, and assuming the Miers' nomination wasn't just a stalking horse to begin with, then her withdrawal, which I sensed from Day 1, is going to be a masterful example of how to make lemonade when all you've got is lemons.
No matter how it happens, Bush will look like he lost a big one, and that is even more frightening than the prospect of Miers on the court. He's too insecure a man to just swallow a loss and move on gracefully.
Bush will move to his base for the next nomination, the Democrats are still MIA, and the nuclear option is sitting on the back burner. It'll be great theatre, if not farce, as the master spinners twirl the mainline media like a baton in the hands of a cheerleader.
At least Bush's domestic agenda, short term, will be in the toilet. Beware the next chapter.
-
Is Sulzberger next?
[Read the article: Is Judy Miller done at the Times?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]How about a two for one deal. Miller should show Sulzberger how since he has to be a real dimwit to have let her 'run amok' as he has.
-
Democrats: Hold your fire!
[Read the article: Alito, the nuclear option and the Democrats' thin hopes]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"One way or another, our money says that Alito gets confirmed unless the confirmation process reveals some shocking skeletons in his closet. If we're right, the question for the Democrats is this: How hard to do you fight if you know that you're going to lose anyway? Do you devote your time, your energy and a reputation to this battle, or do you focus instead on GOP scandals that keep coming and a war that won't go away? There's a menu from which Democrats can choose now, and the choices they make may determine whether they keep winding up on the losing end of these votes in the future."
As a life-long progressive, who already thinks the Democrats stand for nothing and until they stand for something will continue to lose elections, suggesting that wimpy Democrats should once again at least consider their options before limping onto the battlefield makes my blood boil. If a fight over this nomination is not worth having, then I no longer know what is worthy of a fight.
Opposition, as the Repugs have taught us, is a habit. Not something you save up for a rainy day. If there's any doubt, it's not only raining, it's a torrent. Exactly what are the Dems waiting for? Some judge to hand them back the Congress or the White House? I'm sure Supreme Court Justice Scalito would be happy to help on that one.
Focusing on GOP scandals, and pointing on how ignorant, shallow, self-absorbed, and insecure Bush is doesn't mean you stand for something. The Democrats have to do more than point fingers, and sneer at what's wrong. This has to be a fight to the death, and so far the Dems have made it quite clear they're staying home.