Letters to the Editor
Asher Steinberg
Published Letters: 212 Editor's Choice: 12
-
That's nice, but...
[Read the article: Roe, 35 years later]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Roe v. Wade may very well have been great policy, but it's terrible constitutional law. There's simply no basis for the decision and never was, and however much we may like the outcome, policy decisions, which is what this was, aren't supposed to be made by judges. Abortion rights would ultimately be a lot more secure if the debate were a political one; people would respect a decision made by democratic processes much more than they respect the current means of safeguarding abortion - an illegitimate judicial fiat. We'd also be spared all the silly questioning that goes on about Roe every single time a judge gets nominated, when after all we really shouldn't be choosing judges on the basis of what they might decide on a single issue, as unfortunately happens today. Morally, I happen to believe abortion's wrong, but I certainly wouldn't want my moral intuitions to be enshrined in a decision of "law" concocted out of whole cloth.
-
Good Article
[Read the article: Will whites vote for Barack Obama? ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I would just add that, while there still may be some residual prejudice against black candidates qua black candidates, Obama's probably no less electable than Hillary, who isn't black, obviously, but has higher negatives and a gender problem. I think that if she's the nominee, Republican turnout will be a lot higher (even though they may not be terribly inspired by whoever their candidate ends up being) just because most Republicans dislike her so much. Either one, however, would probably win. Independent voters and even many Democrats, for reasons that I don't quite understand, like McCain a lot, but I think that would change when the Democrats run the inevitable attack ad quoting his remarks about us staying in Iraq for a hundred years.
-
Eh...
[Read the article: Bill Clinton looks backward]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I didn't really get the point of this article. There's nothing terribly 90s about the "playbook" Clinton's using. What's backwards or 90s about personal attacks? They're a part of campaigning that will always be with us. I think this is a calculated strategy. Better that he do the attacking than Hillary lest she come off as too negative or mean; even if she doesn't go on the attack, many voters will still find her unlikeable. And there's no one better to make these attacks than Bill because he's so high-profile, fairly credible, and people will listen. He's been a little out of control at times, but in the long run I think this will help more than hurt.
-
RE: joshhabb
[Read the article: In the NYT primary, it's Clinton and McCain]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Yes, there are many voters who would vote for Hillary who didn't vote for Gore and Kerry. You have to remember that the economy is weaker than it was in 2000 or 2004 and the incumbent, a Republican, is very unpopular for other reasons. Not to mention that Gore, as liked as he is now, was an absolutely terrible campaigner and that Kerry wasn't much better. McCain versus Hillary would probably be the Republicans' most favorable match-up, but when you consider that Iraq's so unpopular and McCain's stated position on that is that he'd like to stay there for a hundred years, I just don't see how, sans some incredible missteps on Hillary's part, he wins. The Democratic primary will, in all likelihood, determine who's the next President.
-
Maybe When Huckabee Finally Quits...
[Read the article: A GOP thriller in Florida]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]He can pen one-liners for the nominee.
-
Can you comprehend an exit poll??
[Read the article: An old-fashioned thumpin' in South Carolina]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't think you're very bright. Or at least, not very good at math. Hillary actually won by four points among the 26% of the electorate who thought Bill's campaigning was very important, and she did much better in the aggregated important group (very important + somewhat important) than she did in the not important group. She only lost by 11 points in the important, as you mention, but she lost by 49 points among those who thought her husband's campaigning was not important, capturing only 13% of this vote, and only 9% of those who said that his campaigning was "not important at all." Ergo, Clinton's campaigning actually helped. Moreover, while 70% of voters thought that Hillary attacked unfairly, 57% said the same of Obama, and only 19% said that Hillary, but not Obama, attacked unfairly - probably most of them were staunch Obama supporters in the first place. The conclusion I draw is that if Clinton hadn't campaigned in South Carolina, Obama would have probably won by an even bigger margin.
-
In Response to John Hummel
[Read the article: An old-fashioned thumpin' in South Carolina]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You note that Hillary did worse in the towns where her husband campaigned. However, there's a very obvious reason for that. Clinton campaigned in predominantly black towns. He didn't go to white suburbs where she was going to do well in the first place. He was sent there to help her with black voters and in that, I'll grant you, he failed. But one certainly can't assume that, because Hillary did bad in towns where Bill campaigned, Bill's campaigning must have caused her to do bad. The whole state saw him on TV, it's not like those who were in a mile radius of Clinton talking were any more aware of his dastardly campaign tactics than anyone else. The fact is, among those who say that they didn't care about Clinton's campaigning at all, only 9% voted for Hillary, but among those who said his campaigning was very important, she won 48-44, so the logical conclusion is, at the least, that he didn't hurt. I'm also not sure exactly what Clinton said that was so awful. Probably the nastiest thing that he's said yet - comparing Obama to Jesse Jackson - came after the fact. Other than that, it's all been above the belt, really.
-
I Appear To Be The Only Rudy Fan Who Owns A Computer
[Read the article: Punch-drunk Rudy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Yep. I'm seriously torn up about Rudy's soon-to-be fourth place finish in the primary. To all the people who think McCain's so electable, just wait until Hillary starts sailing into him for saying we should stay in Iraq for a hundred years. Rudy was the only Republican who could have won; he's been out of office for so long no one can blame him for anything that's gone wrong the past 8 years. And he was actually a good mayor, New Yorkers' hatred for the guy notwithstanding. I mean, who can trust what a New Yorker thinks about anything anyway? You folks hate A-Rod too.