Letters to the Editor
Asher Steinberg
Published Letters: 224 Editor's Choice: 12
-
I Agree, And...
[Read the article: John McCain's endless war]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I still think Rudy would've been more electable than either of these boors. McCain's condescending and obnoxious, and Romney seems dishonest and fake. And both are too conservative to win. Unfortunately, Rudy ran an awful campaign. I'm a lifelong Republican but I'll have a tough time voting for either of these guys; they're just so unlikeable.
-
Besides Your Blatant Bias...
[Read the article: Did Hillary Clinton really win in Florida?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You're also just wrong. The DNC has the legal right, I suppose, to nullify a primary if they don't like when the state plans to hold it, but it really doesn't seem very fair to toss out one of the most populous state's votes, especially when they voted so unequivocally for one of the candidates. To imply that there's something dishonest in Hillary's campaign trumpeting this as a win is just silly. Yes, it may ultimately make no difference in the convention, but it's still an expression of strong support by one of the biggest states in the country and one traditionally very reflective of national sentiment at large, so in that sense it's still very meaningful - much more so than Barack's win in South Carolina, a state that (a) doesn't have many delegates, and (b) voted for him along racial lines, and therefore, can't be said to be very predictive of what's going to happen in future contests, given that most states' Democratic primary electorates aren't so overwhelmingly black.
-
You Didn't Quite Explain...
[Read the article: Will the press get over its love for McCain?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]what the Reform Institute does and/or why McCain would be influenced by donations to the Institute. I mean, can he take money from the Institute to use in his campaigns somehow, or does it all go towards issue advocacy? If the latter, I don't quite get why he'd be influenced by donations to the Institute.
-
I Don't Really Think This Talk Is Bigoted
[Read the article: Blowback from the GOP's holy war]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The terrorists they're talking about do purport to be acting out of religious motives, specifically Islamic ones, and if you just say "the terrorists" you're not being very specific. There are all sorts of terrorists in the world, but it's primarily the Islamic extremists who some people believe are a grave foreign policy concern. I don't see why one can't identify them. How are you supposed to make any clear policy objectives if you're not even allowed to specify what kinds of terrorists you want to fight? Of course, if you prefer, you could say Arabic terrorists, thereby making the characterization less offensive on religious grounds, at least. But then someone will say that's racial bigotry. And of course, when we had Timothy McVeigh and that sort of terrorism seemed like a big concern, we did identify them, contrary to what you suggest. We called them skinheads - thereby offending, I'm sure, all sorts of white people who shave their heads and aren't affiliated with terrorist groups. Perhaps the label was unduly offensive to some, but better some kind of specificity than just saying, oh, we need to take on domestic terror, when in reality, the most serious threat was from this one type of terrorist group.
-
Uh Huh
[Read the article: If Clinton gets the nomination, would Michelle Obama support her?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So if an Obama attacks a Clinton they get points for honesty. If a Clinton attacks an Obama they're a racist or a 'Rovian' tactician. That's ridiculous. Being a Republican I have no real stake in this, but I think it's pretty tacky all the same. On the other hand, perhaps what it points to is the fact that Obama and his wife, much like Obama supporters, don't have any real ideology or principles (see the comments on Reagan) and would happily vote Republican if the Democratic candidate turns out to not be likeable enough for them. It strikes me that what really matters to Obama people isn't ideas so much as it is tone. Otherwise, it would be hard to explain why they like Obama and hate Hillary so much, given that their policies are practically identical.
-
Your Conclusions Don't Follow From Your Premises
[Read the article: Republicans have become the credibility-free party]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Democrats in Congress are less popular now than before, yes, and people don't like Republicans or the war in Iraq. Does that mean that Democrats' decline in popularity is attributable to compromise with Republicans? Not at all. I would chalk it up instead to the fact that (a) Americans aren't happy with the economy and the way things are going in general, and (b) the Democrats are in power in Congress and therefore appear to be partly blameworthy. Anytime a party's in control of Congress or the Presidency and people are discontented, the approval ratings of the party in control will drop. That's all there really is to it. I doubt that as many as 10% of Americans are even aware that the Democrats have 'capitulated' to the Republicans on a lot of issues.
-
That's Why It's Hard To Vote For Romney
[Read the article: Does Mitt Romney love Ronald Reagan enough?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm not even sure if I like Reagan, but with Romney you just don't know what you'll get. He might be the most moderate Republican in the White House since Nixon or he might send all the illegal immigrants to Guantanamo.
-
This Doesn't Matter
[Read the article: John McCain hates Mitt Romney]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I doubt a momentary campaign stop will change the outcome in MA, or make it more likely that Romney will win elsewhere. Moreover, at this point the outcome's pretty much a given. As for McCain hating Romney, I thought he was pretty loathsome at first myself, but McCain's not exactly Mr. Charming either.