Letters to the Editor
Steve1us
Published Letters: 102
-
What a guy..
[Read the article: "Because I love America ... I have to now stand aside"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]He's dropping out to save US ... swooooon ... not because he didn't want to throw away more millions on a lost cause, or because he didn't win a major primary, or because he had NO chance to win the nomination ... he's doing it to save us from the terrorist sympathizers Barack and Hillary. The sad thing is, once they put their false teeth back in, most of those convention yahoos will buy that. Remember these are the same true believers who said we would be welcomed as liberators in Iraq and the war would pay for itself.
-
Hoping for a miscue in a debate tactic
[Read the article: How will it all end?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's interesting this "Clintons want more debates hoping Obama shows his inexperience with a slip-up" tactic that Shapiro repeats. So far the only damaging slip-up - if you don't count Kucinich admitting (like millions of others) that he has seen an unidentified flying object - was Hillary's complete fumbling of the New York driver's license issue.
-
Figures
[Read the article: Mr. Penn, pot and kettle called]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Penn, like his masters, is a total corporate sell-out. And now HRC is trying to sell herself as the working man's candidate - didn't REALLY like NAFTA, didn't mean to vote for the bankruptcy bill, etc. Please Texas or Ohio, save us from four more years of the spin doctors, faux populists and top-down, power-mad elitists.
-
Who's picking the editor's choice letters?
[Read the article: Getting through these dark times]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]... Joan or some other Hillary supporter or some Rush ditto-head? Jpincus repeating Rush's lies and SB saying she had crazy eyes are the editor's choice picks? What are you guys on?
-
Joan does backflips for Hillary
[Read the article: A supersize controversy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Joan, why don't you stop pretending to be neutral and just admit you have an agenda of electing Hillary? Because then you might not influence people? Listening to you on TV and reading you here, it's obvious you will wrap yourself into a pretzel (exhibit A is this article) in order to find some under the radar way to back HRC. The Obama people want it both ways? How about mentioning Harold Ickes from the Clinton campaign who voted to not count Florida and Michigan as a member of the DNC but now says they should count (even though Obama wasn't on the ballot in Michigan). Wouldn't that be a clearer example of having it both ways? But that would be putting the Clinton campaign in a negative light; can't have that can we, Joan?
-
The Fall of Joan
[Read the article: A supersize controversy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]One of the worst by-products of this Democratic nomination process has been to watch as women who I used to respect like Joan Walsh and Rachel Maddow turn themselves inside out pretending to be "fair and balanced" while skewing every perpsecitve to shed the best possible light on a candidate who earns their support simply on the basis of her gender. They wouldn't for a second support a male with the ethical lapses and naked lust for power that Hillary Clinton has, but these days they are all over the media spouting every Clinton campaign talking point such as this superdelegate nonsense or this latest ridiculous "plagiarism" charge that is nothing but a ridiculous distraction from the real issues. This is nothing but Bush/Rove politics redux and the fact that so many faux feminists are mindlessly joining the Clinton kneecap brigade in order to elect one of their own without regard to her actions as to war and big corpora and her complete failure to truly do anything for working and poor people while enriching herself shows their moral bankruptcy. What do these knee-jerk reactionary faux feminists think they will accomplish by continuing the slash and burn style of politics? They won't elect Hillary, just maybe get her the nomination and in the process destroy the Democratic party.
-
winning the battle while losing the war
[Read the article: Clinton's "win-at-all-costs strategy"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's not surprising the Clinton kneecappers do whatever they can, regardless of how unethical, to win the nomination - it's been their MO all along. In case you didn't understand before, these people have no morals. What is really sad is to see how many of her followers in the media like Joan Walsh and posters like those here join them in the embrace of Rovian politics. You may win the battle but you will lose the very people - the young, progressives with consciences, and African-Americans - who give the Democratic party any soul it might have. You will also destroy the Democratic Party and lose the general election, not that those things matter right now to the kneecappers.
-
Babbling Brooks
[Read the article: Quote of the day]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]As if any more proof was needed that Brooks is a POS, here you have it. Isn't it funny that the elites (both the Republicans and Hillary's inner circle) who Brooks so sorely wants to be thought of as one, got us into the myriad messes we are in today: the economy, with its ever-increasing global shift of capital to the very very rich (Friedmanomics), to unprovoked wars of aggression (neocon wargame fantasizers). Their unrealistic views of how the world actually works are the ideological bases for many of our current ills; yet the Obama supporters who think it's not good to keep repeating the same mistakes over an over (Einstein's definition of insanity) are painted as starry-eyed dreamers. Sorry, this older white male has his feet firmly planted on the ground - even while I am inspired by Obama's eloquent calls for us to take a different path.
-
Can Matthews answer his own question?
[Read the article: "Name some of Barack Obama's legislative accomplishments ... if you can" ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]As a journalist who, no doubt, thoroughly researched the candidates' history and stances on issues, surely Chris Matthews could answer his own question, right? A Republican leader in the Illinois legislature said Obama had a great record of legislative accomplishments while a member and Obama's Web site lists specific examples, so the record is clear - if journalists will only check it out. But I suspect Chris cannot answer his own question, showing he has no more credibility as a journalist than those he tries to embarrass as a blood sport for ratings purposes.