Letters to the Editor
Asher Steinberg
Published Letters: 224 Editor's Choice: 12
-
this "Serious" stuff is in your imagination
[Read the article: John McCain's serious foreign policy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If you're going to keep sarcastically calling him the Serious candidate, at least quote someone, anyone, calling him such. And it would help for your argument if that someone wasn't David Brooks or some guy working for the American Enterprise Institute. I don't see this "Serious" meme or bias anywhere. It seems to me most of the discussion of McCain and foreign policy has centered around "bomb Iran," "a hundred years," and "al-Qaeda is in Iraq," though I'm sure you'd say it hasn't been talked about enough for your taste and complain that Obama's bad bowling score got more press.
-
I'll Tell You Who's So Wrong
[Read the article: Why Jeremiah Wright is so wrong]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]PBS for continuing to give Bill Moyers a job. You call that an interview? Where was the AIDS question, or the "why are you endorsing candidates from the pulpit and telling people to vote for Obama simply because his opponents have never been called a ______," or "where did you get the idea that the Middle East is in Africa when it's in Asia"... the guy doesn't even know what hermeneutic means. Moyers was pathetic. Wright came off very well, but anyone would when all they get asked is softballs.
-
Was Gitlin's Contribution Some Kind of Sick Parody?
[Read the article: What should Obama do about Rev. Jeremiah Wright?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Obama should say that he no more associates himself with Wright's remarks than John McCain (by his own say-so) agrees with John Hagee about Satanic Catholics or righteous Armageddon. He should remind his interlocutors that McCain went looking for Hagee's endorsement while he, Obama, did not do the same with Wright.
Obama didn't go looking for Wright? He chose to go to his church! And stayed there for 20 years. Wow.
He should also repeat that he's running for president, and that therefore he wants to talk about the awful Iraq war, the awful economy, the awful Bush years and the danger of extending them with McCain. He should say all this with a smile and his customary grace.
His customary grace??? What grace?
-
You're Right
[Read the article: Why the Jeremiah Wright story deserves more attention]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]We're not a problem-plagued nation. Seriously though, you just don't get how the news works. If this were 1932 you'd be complaining about all the coverage of the Lindbergh kidnapping. And back then we really did have problems. However, you do get a brownie point for your last post. I'm not sure if it matters that Brian Williams is a fool, but I'm pretty convinced that he is one. I'm a conservative and I thought that column was garbage. Who cares about how Obama feels about the Wright Brothers? And Brian tells us to "curl up" with it, give it some quality time? Amazing. What about the claim that Hillary learned the importance of the Wright Brothers/Henry Ford/the Gold Rush "in her long slog through Arkansas"? Why did it take until she got to Arkansas? Why didn't she learn it growing up in Illinois, or working in Washington? What is that supposed to mean? That the authentic America only exists in poor, rural southern/midwestern states? We're all Americans. But back to Wright, besides the fact that the news will always tend to cover stuff other than the "real problems" that plague the country, one could at least make a case that the Wright fanfare speaks to some of those real problems. Unless you think that race no longer matters, but I doubt you think that.
-
So?
[Read the article: Scott Bateman: John McCain is a maverick]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If you look up the "Barack Obama Inc." article in Harper's, or this* article in USA Today, or about a billion other articles in the Times, WSJ, etc., you'd find that your guy (I assume he's your guy) is just as dependent on lobbyists and lobbyist money too.
-
And I Found Obama's Reply More Disturbing
[Read the article: McCain embraces Bush's radical views of executive power]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The Straight Talk Express took another sharp right turn today as John McCain promised his conservative base four more years of out-of-touch judges that would threaten a woman’s right to choose, gut the campaign finance reform that bears his own name, and trample the rights and interests of the American people. Barack Obama has always believed that our courts should stand up for social and economic justice, and what’s truly elitist is to appoint judges who will protect the powerful and leave ordinary Americans to fend for themselves.
Now, Glenn, you're a constitutional lawyer. Should courts stand up for social and economic justice?
-
Yes, But
[Read the article: Finding Obama guilty of insufficient devotion to Israel]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]A recent Gallup poll found that among American Jewish voters, Obama destroys McCain (61-32%)...
Call that destroy if you like, but Democratic presidential nominees usually do much better than field 61% of the Jewish vote.
-
Haha
[Read the article: Clinton is "almost like ... the Al Sharpton of white people"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Matthews and Casey are two of the dimmest men in politics. Casey especially, but Matthews appears to be suffering from some kind of degenerative disease. He used to be halfway bright; now he thinks that blue-collar's an elitist term and says things like, "we're not sociologists, we're Americans." What, he's never seen an American sociologist before? How's the party supposed to figure out who'd make the better nominee without seeing which constituencies support which candidate?
-
What??
[Read the article: Tom Friedman's latest declaration of war]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]And now Friedman has shifted his phallic, warmongering eyes from Iraq to Iran.
Phallic eyes? What are you talking about? You'd be a half-decent commentator if you dropped all the silly, poorly written ad hominem attacks on anyone and everyone to the right of Ted Kennedy.
-
This Only Matters If:
[Read the article: Edwards endorsing Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]he has a lot of delegates that he has the power to release to Obama. Otherwise, his endorsement's meaningless. No one cares about John Edwards.
-
And As It Turns Out...
[Read the article: Edwards endorsing Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Edwards has just 16 pledged delegates, and, while Edwards can ask them to vote for Obama, they're by no means bound to do so. So this changes very little.
-
Yeah, But
[Read the article: "Hardball": Barack Obama is no Neville Chamberlain ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]this doesn't show that Obama's right, that it isn't, in fact, an idiotic idea, or that Matthews isn't, in fact, retarded... anyone who paid a little attention in their high school history classes could've done the same thing.