Letters to the Editor
bamage
Published Letters: 1114
-
Long excerpt
[Read the article: CNN's John King responds]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Go read the whole thing:
While it is the intention to bring marginalized voices to the airwaves, the aim is not to establish a left-wing echo chamber. Representatives of the government agency or corporation under discussion are invited, although they often decline. Recent participants have included former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan and the president of a trade association for private mercenary companies.
One uninvited guest was then-President Bill Clinton, who called into the show on Election Day in 2000 as part of an effort to encourage radio listeners to vote for Democratic candidate Al Gore. Goodman seized the opportunity and asked: "You are calling radio stations to tell people to get out and vote. What do you say to people who feel that the two parties are bought by corporations and that ... their vote doesn't make a difference?" From there, he was quizzed for 30 minutes on issues such as sanctions on Iraq and Democratic Party members' support for the death penalty. An exasperated Clinton finally lashed out at Goodman for asking "hostile and combative" questions. "They've been critical," she replied.
Goodman says that the following day a staffer from the White House Press Office called and berated her for violating the ground rules. "What ground rules?" she asked. It had been an impromptu call, and no rules had been discussed. Goodman's transgression was to stray to topics beyond getting the voters out -- and to keep Clinton on the phone too long. She told the staffer: "President Clinton is the most powerful person in the world; he can hang up if he wants to."
-
I'll see Jim White, and raise him $20...
[Read the article: Lawbreaking telecoms still conniving to obtain immunity from Congress]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]RE: JW's pg. 1 comment about breaking out the credit card for Edwards - I'd hold my nose and send some $ to ANY of the candidates (even HRC) were they to step up at this point and come out strong against telecom immunity.
-
More people need to read this...
[Read the article: Lawbreaking telecoms still conniving to obtain immunity from Congress]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Don't forget about the "Digg" functionality. It's under the "share" link at the bottom left of the post.
I'm not sure if it helps all that much, but it can't hurt. 50 Diggs seems to be some kind of magic number.
There's 1, so far. Hint, hint, if you're so inclined.
-
L.W.M.
[Read the article: Lawbreaking telecoms still conniving to obtain immunity from Congress]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thanks for the DS link. I DVR'ed it, but for anyone who didn't, it's good to see Jon Stewart treat the Doughy Pantload w/ the derision he's earned.
-
Paul Dirks
[Read the article: Lawbreaking telecoms still conniving to obtain immunity from Congress]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Clicked your sig to read Obama's letter, caught something on your site that compelled me to mention -
"The Fat Man [still] Rocks!"
-
RE:
[Read the article: Will the Democratic presidential candidates adhere to their rhetoric?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]GG:
"It will be increasingly difficult to listen to Edwards, Obama and Clinton tout their supreme leadership attributes..."
I'm not sure how it can be MORE difficult to listen to them than it is now. That having been said, I will call, write, fax, etc. the various leverage points as they are delineated over the next few days.
-
Consider the source...
[Read the article: Will the Democratic presidential candidates adhere to their rhetoric?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]http://rawstory.com/news/2007/ACLU_poll_Majority_opposes_telecom_immunity_0122.html
or
http://tinyurl.com/39obbp
Tough to get in this place, lately. New doorman?
-
@ GG re: "to no avail"
[Read the article: Will the Democratic presidential candidates adhere to their rhetoric?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm curious as the the Edwards camp's rationale AGAINST vociferously decrying telco immunity. Anything you can divulge?
-
Comments are up
[Read the article: Consequences for ignoring congressional subpoenas: None]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Too bad the post is another one of those "make you want to tear your hair out" observations...
No comment from me on just how mind-bogglingly AWFUL are the fr!ckin' Dems. Scratch that - Congress.
-
And BTW
[Read the article: Consequences for ignoring congressional subpoenas: None]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Speaking of "Senators running for President" - have YOU written your "NO amnesty for telecoms" email to Edwards'campaign?
I have.
john@johnedwards.com
-
@GG
[Read the article: Your Harry Reid-led Senate in action]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If it's "your job" edit the teaser on the Salon Front page...
-
Mildly interesting exchange
[Read the article: Your Harry Reid-led Senate in action]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I called Dodd's office to determine whether Sen. Dodd intends to filibuster (YES) and whether Reid has ever given Dodd an answer as to why Reid chooses to ignore Dodd's hold (NO).
Called Reidss office w/ question on why Reid is ignoring Dodd's hold. I'm referred to an online statment from Reid and cut off. Reid's statement does NOT address the question.
Called Reid's office back. I'm told "during the Dec. 14th debate, Sen's. Reid and Dodd AGREED debate would continue in January, so Reid is NOT ignoring a Dodd hold."
I called Dodd's office, and relayed this info. Somewhat surprised, I was, by the response. Something to the effect of, (paraphrasing)"No, we did not know Reid's office was stating that as their position, thank you very very much for calling, I will see that Sen. Dodd receives this information as soon as I can."
-
@zeitgeister
[Read the article: Your Harry Reid-led Senate in action]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I second Jim White's comment. If you can document your assertions, that's potentially quite important.
@Jebbie re: sharter28%
If only your last comment were true, we'd all be spared the inanity.
-
Wholly lacking in any sense of irony
[Read the article: Your Harry Reid-led Senate in action]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]More transparency and less secrecy, I always say.
--Anonymous
-
Slightly O/T
[Read the article: Your Harry Reid-led Senate in action]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]but it relates to the broader question of "Howinthehell did we arrive at this critical juncture?"
Deconstructing John Yoo (response to his WSJ op ed)
http://harpers.org/archive/2008/01/hbc-90002226
-
WT
[Read the article: Your Harry Reid-led Senate in action]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I actually read them in reverse order - the takedown first, then the WATB op-ed. Yoo ranks right up there with, I don't know, Addington maybe? for the "Assh*le who's done the most damage to the Country by convincing GWB/Cheny they can get away with it" award.
And I'm not sure about you, but I DEFINITELY need to get out more.
8')
-
House Leverage Points?
[Read the article: Jay Rockefeller's unintentionally revealing comments]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Was it pow-pow who pointed out yesterday that Reid will let [whomever] introduce an amendment to replace the IC Bill (w/ telco immunity)w/ the SJC substitute Bill (no telco immunity), and then promptly "table" (KILL) the "no telco immunity" amendment?
What are the leverage points in the House? Is the Conference Committee (is that where "reconcilition of the two versions of the Bill occurs?) the last stand?
-
AAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!
[Read the article: Jay Rockefeller's unintentionally revealing comments]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I JUST CAN'T F*CK!NG TAKE IT!!!!
Sorry, but I really needed to get that out of my system...
-
@Dan JO
[Read the article: Jay Rockefeller's unintentionally revealing comments]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I figured staffers were reading, so I kept it polite, but short and sweet. "The country needs you to assume a mantle of Leadership" on this issue kind of thing.
I didn't curse, though. Or rave. Or scream in anguish. Even though I felt like doing all three simultaneously.
That's a remarkable demonstration of restraint, innit?
-
Dodd's up on c-span 2
[Read the article: Jay Rockefeller's unintentionally revealing comments]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]N/T