Letters to the Editor
Xanthro
Published Letters: 522 Editor's Choice: 47
-
Republican voters
[Read the article: Is time running out for the GOP?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I know are large number of people who vote straight republican tickets, and that vast majority of them hate Bush more than most Democracts, and while many won't actually be voting for Democratic candidates, that doesn't matter because they aren't going to be voting for Republican candidates either.
Republicans win most elections on base turnout, without usually more motivated voters, they win because a higher percentage turn out and vote. That's why you see side strategies to get their base to vote, anti-gay marriage ballots and such.
With a majority of Republicans depressed about the State of the country and disgusted with their own party leaders, their turnout will be less than normal and this translate into far more Democratic victories.
I'm going out on a limb and saying 80% the Democrats win 24 additional seats in the House, and 20% that they take 35 or more.
-
Hate Crime
[Read the article: Why doesn't shooting girls count as a hate crime?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This wasn't a hate crime, because hate crimes are not simply crimes that target a specific class. Hate crimes are crimes that create more victims than those directly involved. When Robert Byrd Jr. was dragged to death in Jasper county Texas, the purpose was not only to commit murder, but to terrorize the black population.
When a civic leader is killed it isn't called murder, it's called an assassination. The person is killed not because of who she or he is, but what she or he represents, and all those who share those ideas are victims as well.
Hate crime is similar in nature, in that others are terrorized by the crime.
In this case, do we really think the message was to terrorize Amish females?
-
What do you want explained?
[Read the article: Is DeWine history? Has Harris been vindicated? Was Allen p.c.?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Joe Lieberman
Can someone explain that situation to me? It defies reason.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The situation is pretty clear, in a State where there are more registered Independents than either registered Republicans or Democrats, winning the Democratic primary does not translate into winning the General election.
Lamont has to win Independent votes in order to win. This is the problem that too many Democrats seems to be forgetting. We can't just win Democratic votes and win the general election. We have to win Independents and even Republican votes.
Lamont is trying to win Independent votes, but that means a move to the center, which alienates his core of far more liberal Democracts.
Lamont is in the race at this point only because he has enough personal wealth to add millions to his own campaign, without this influx of personal money, he'd be so far behind in the polls so as to stand no chance at all.
Those who are claiming Lamont is behind because he has lost the fire of progressive causes, really don't understand politics. Lamont has about 70% of the Democratic vote at the moment, the other 30% are with Lieberman, not because Lamont is too conservative, but because they view Lamont as too Liberal. Since Lamont is way behind in both Republican and Independent voters, he'll have a very hard time winning in the General Election. Something I predicated months ago.
At this point Lieberman would have a lock on the Election if he'd simply stop talking and making such mistakes as saying Bolton should be confirmed and that he's not sure a Democratic led Senate would be better. This gaffes give Lamont some room to use that personal wealth and come from behind, but I don't really see that happening this late in the race.
-
The "scum" that holds the balance of Senate power.
[Read the article: Is DeWine history? Has Harris been vindicated? Was Allen p.c.?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Lieberman is scum-sucking quisling who, to paraphrase the immortal words of Hunter S. Thompson..."is a gutless old ward-heeler who should be stuffed in a bottle and sent out on the japanese current.""
------------------------------------------
The best the Democrats can hope for in the Senate is having a 51-49 lead, and that 51 includes Lieberman voting for Democratic leadership. 50-50 gives the tie breaker to Cheney and hence a Republican majority control of the Senate, and with it all Senate power.
It's not wise to demonize the very person we may well require on our side in order to take the Senate control.
Is there any doubt that Lieberman would have voted for Democratic leadership prior to the Lamont challenge? No, there isn't.
No, there is the slight possibility that he will either vote for a compromise of some sort, or Republicans, and the more we bash him for not being a Democrat, the less reason he has to vote along side us for Senate control.
-
Party or State?
[Read the article: Is DeWine history? Has Harris been vindicated? Was Allen p.c.?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Which should be considered more important, Party or State?
Plenty of Democrats are beyond reasonably mad at Lieberman for running as an Independent, despite the fact that Independents greatly outnumber Democracts in his State.
If the voters in Vermont are willing to re-elect Lieberman, that is between Lieberman and Vermont voters.
There are plenty of Republican Senators from other States that I cannot stand, nor fathom why anyone votes for him, but he's not my Senator.
Lieberman, and for that matter, no Senator, owes their party anything. They owe their State.
People need to step back and listen to themselves. They are mad because Lieberman is running for office when he has the most overall support of all the candidates. Why should any candidate with the most support in his or her State not run just because he or she has lost a primary?
It say something is wrong with the primary when the loser is still the most popular candidate.
-
He was instrumental in bringing me on board.
[Read the article: My laid-off co-worker is fibbing on his résumé]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Let's repeat this "He was instrumental in bringing me on board."
Co-Workers are not instrumental in bringing anyone on board. Whether titled or not, only someone who is given managerial control over a team can be instrumental in bringing team members, especially new employees on board.
Many teams work in this manner. Their titles may be the same, but on person is the team leader and has all the responsibilities of a manager and in fact manage the team.
If he had the power to be instrumental in bringing you on board he had the power to consider himself the team manager.