Letters to the Editor
Bill Stearns
Published Letters: 11
-
foreign policy portion DID serve a purpose
[Read the article: Mitt Romney in the crosshairs]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The foreign policy portion of the debate served to show how detached from reality the Republican party is outside of Paul.
Ghouliani actually said that Islamic hatred of the United States has "nothing" to do with our foreign policy! It's all stems from Sayyib Qutb's writings, Romney and Huckabee concur. Can you get any more detached than that?
-
something smells in here....
[Read the article: How will it all end?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The sense of entitlement you get from the Clinton supporters posting on here shows just how badly things are going for her right now. She didn't expect this challenge, and her supporters are outraged, OUTRAGED, that the anointed-one is having a rough go of it.
Here's betting that the level of shrillness from her supporters only increases (provided that's even possible) as February goes on.
-
Bitterness abounds
[Read the article: McCain targets Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]@ Anonymous.
When the electorate wants change, experience at being a Washington insider doesn't exactly fit the bill.
As far as McCain having a better chance of beating Obama if he were the nominee rather than McCain, I have seen no respectable political commentator stake out this position. It flies in the face of common sense in fact - no one disagrees that Clinton is the more polarizing figure, and that there is a much larger portion of the electorate which simply would not vote for her no matter what the alternative.
Your only argument in this regard is to claim that the 527's will have a field day with Obama. I have seen nothing to suggest that there is any more "dirt" to dig up on Obama than what little has already been brought forth by the Clinton campaign (with decidedly lackluster results). The Rezko matter involving the house and adjacent property next door appears to have been simply bad judgment on Obama's part. There's very little the 527's can do with this.
In fact, the rumors I keep hearing about what McCain's fellow soldiers might have to say about him make me think he has much more to fear from the 527's than Obama.
If you or anyone can present a clear-headed argument why Obama would lose to McCain I'm all ears. But all I've heard so far is the same bitterness you find all over Salon these days from you brave "anonymous" Clinton supporters.
-
Farrakhan
[Read the article: Denouncing, rejecting at the Democratic debate ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Louis Farrakhan is not the evil man many make him out to be. Unfortunately, due to his positions on Israel vis-a-vis the Palestinians and the potential he had at one time to influence U.S. public opinion on the matter, he has long been smeared as an anti-Semite. Pat Buchanan suffered the same abuse at the hands of the Likudniks in this country, but his reputation never really took much of a hit because those who know Pat know how absurd the smear was. But unfortunately for Farrakhan, he is both Muslim and dark-skinned, and so has no chance of being treated fairly in this country for his contrarian views.
For anyone looking to learn more about the real Farrakhan, I recommend searching online for several pieces the since-departed Jude Wanniski wrote about him. Jude was an interesting person - an economic adviser in the early Reagan years and one of the founding fathers of "supply-side" economics, he had a severe falling-out with the right over the Iraq war and was viciously smeared by the Neocrazies and their ilk. He appeared on the Bill O'Reilly's show not long before the invasion and was mercilessly attacked by O'Reilly for stating that Iraq posed no threat to the U.S. and all evidence pointed to Iraq having destroyed their WMDs in the early 90's (that information was out there even before the war, people). Whatever you think of his economics, he was a good man and an independent thinker and there are not many like him left today.
-
Ohio might often pick the winner....
[Read the article: Clinton wins Ohio]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...but it also often picks the worst possible candidate. Bush 2000. Bush 2004 (although the actual vote is disputed).
If you check out the county-by-county results you'll see she does extremely well in all the rural areas, while Obama does well in the urban centers. Give her credit - she's great at pulling in the under-educated, white trash vote.
According to the latest poll, she is ahead in Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) by about 1,000 votes with only 11% reporting. I would be shocked if she won Cuyahoga, but the insanity of my birth state appears boundless at times.
For those of you who think McCain would win Ohio vs. Obama, I tend to think you're right. Ohio's population is older and less educated. This is a state Clinton might do better in in the general election.
I still think Obama's the right choice, though. In the end, I think this election is going to be a referendum on the war and, implicitly, on our imperialistic foreign policy. I think Obama has more credibility in this area than Clinton, although I think they are a lot closer than they might appear.
For me, this is all about how the rest of the world perceives us. Frankly, I could care less about the Democratic candidates otherwise since I disagree with pretty much everything else they stand for. Of course, the Republicans have proven are worse in every way, and that's why I will vote for Obama or no one in the general election.
-
More...
[Read the article: The unsung heroes of Iraq war coverage]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Jude Wanniski was very outspoken against this war and took apart the fraudulent reasons being given for it MONTHS before it started. Bill O'Reilly's disgraceful treatment of Wanniski when he appeared on his show not long before the invasion stands out in my memory.
Also, all the folks at Antiwar.com and Lewrockwell.com had it right as well. Antiwar.com had everything so right it is scary.
Pat Buchanan was against it, but he likely argued that it was not in our interest even given the truth of what turned out to be false pre-war claims the Neocons were busy fabricating at the time.
Ritter is a hero in my mind, as was Wanniski (god rest his soul).