Letters to the Editor
-
Are Democrats really so lame?
my friends are good at what they do! when they say 'republicans are too conservative' and the 'democrats are too liberal', it just can't be overlooked. you want the real story: look at 'coke' and 'pepsi', look at mcdonald's' and ' burger king', rc cola and wendy's was left out...sorry independants! we're all tired of the 'stereotyping' of republicans and democrats. there's more to life than "poli(TICS)"! democrats ask questions where republicans only give answers. democrats worry about the rights of EVERYBODY and the republicans are definate and don't worry. republicans look at "money" as the issue where democrats look at 'need'! republicans look at things 'different' where democrats look for a 'difference'. republicans are very 'independent' where democrats establish 'independence' for others...same government, united? where do we stand? stand alone or stand together? who's who?
-
Dysfunctional Democrats and Randical 'pulicans
I think that you have some insightful ideas here. However, the notion that the "Democrats are winning by not losing" is erroneous at best. The public as Texeria has alluded to in his book, is tired of paying taxes only to have all the breaks go to the richest 1%. Bush himself said that the "should get more taxes back because they pay more." In addition, we are tired of government officials who lie about important issues. For example , WMD. Bush did not so much as lie, as he outright made a connection to Iraq and 9/11. And Iraq had the "capability of producing WMD." Well, I have the capability of making WMD if I wanted to by buying fertilizer and renting a truck, as the Oklahoma case in 1995 illustrated.
The problem with Democrats is that they are a very cautious bunch of wonks. But, as in the case of Sen. Patrick Leahy, when an issue comes up they take the lion by the tail and do not let go until it yells uncle.
The economy has changed and the Democrats have changed with it. They recognize the Americans are working at low paying jobs just to keep their health insurance and getting another job to make ends meet. Now the President wants to take away the Schip program for low income people because he is afraid that the "market" will be hurt by this program. What he does not realize and Democrats do is that "the market" is already hurt by insurance companies that make their customers exhausted by jumping through so many hoops. In the end, the 'publicans want to go back to a simpler time and the Democrats want a better future. Who would you want to support. Some party mired in the era of Social Darwinism or one that sees the possibilities of the future?
-
Bush Hating is a Non-Issue
There really is no point in constantly berating the bloggosphere, the left, liberals, etc, for "hating Bush". So much ink has been spilled over this singular, if insignificant, point that one is left wondering if all of these anti-anti-Bush crusaders are really just too lazy to discuss the real issues the left brings up.
I just don't see why the combination of anger and fear that Bush's policies stir is so unbelievably wrong that this much discussion is warranted. But Bush we be gone relatively soon, what emotional impulse on the left are they going to hate next?
-
On Hating Bush
I think anybody that doesn't hate Bush has more than a few screws loose. I can't think of a single issue in which his policies have made a positive change, and plenty where they have been nothing short of disasterous.
If you're African-American, why wouldn't you have deep enmity against a President whose administration took the extreme position of filing a friend of the court brief with the Supreme Court to urge ending affirmative action in college admissions? Or letting New Orleans' poor citizens (predominantly African-American) drown for five days before ending his vacation? Or trying to sell privatization of Social Security by claiming that it's unfair to Blacks because on average they have a shorter lifespan than Whites in America?
If you're a fiscal conservative, or gay, or don't like having your phone bugged, or disapprove of torture, or have a child in a poorer school district, or Arab, or value competence in government officials over cronyism, or own a company that was passed over in a no-bid contract, or have a son or daughter that lost a limb in Iraq, or care about how America is perceived in the world, why wouldn't you hate George W. Bush? You'd be crazy not to.
-
Both Parties are in trouble
Haven't both parties already been exposed as two tentacles of the same beast, the War Party? Why are people still clinging to this "republicans and democrats are different" meme? It is nothing but an illusion, a dog and pony show. When the "Conservative Republican" front-runners are making claims that the Income Tax is too entrenched and can't name a program they would ax to cut taxes, while the "Democratic" front runners discuss "what options are on the table" (i.e. nukes) regarding Pakistan, it should be pretty clear that the whole system is broken and nothing but a sham to hoodwink the people into thinking they have a choice. Here is your choice:
Establishment Warmonger A from the War Party
Establishment Closet-Warmonger B from the War Party
Feel free to throw in other descriptors typical of other elite cretins, such as "CFR member", "secret society member", "Unequivocal AIPAC supporter", "A BFF for Saudi Arabia", "closet communitarian", etc. You know, "bipartisan" positions.
Looking at how things have gone since the midterms, are there really people out there that still honestly believe that there is a fundamental difference between the two parties? You can pretend that abortion isn't a divide and conquer wedge non-issue, but it is. I mean, ever since Fearless Leader took office those Planned Parenthoods are sure on the run! When it comes to abortion, the US feels like a totally different country today than it did under Clinton!
-
Response to Anonymous' response to Stormcrow and Military`
Individual idealism is among the most powerful of human traits it's just that it does not translate well into policy precisely because idealism tends to be polar, and, well, idealistic. Naive is another good describer. As I said, we all know Bush was utterly wrong on all accounts to tackle Iraq but in case you have not noticed we are fighting a proxy war with Russia which is resurgently bellicose these days. I have friends in Iraq. I want them home safely. I'm not sure how that is to be done, frankly. The genie is out of the bottle. Its worse than ever which is why we need someone ready for the job of president.
You cannot legislate idealism. It is noble to want peace. Creating peace however cannot be achieved with idealist slogans or unsound policy. I'm a fairly center of the road independant voter and I am simply offering my personal testimony that idealism, wherever I find it, is almost always linked to the type of radicals that make it personal once you point out to them that their ideals are dangerous, even foolish as policy. Tell me anonymous, how do you propose to FORCE your ideals on people who have diametrically opposed ideals? Abraham Lincoln said the following, "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."