Letters to the Editor
-
Horrible, this democracy thing
I mean people disagreeing and arguing, trying to convince others of their view points. Where will it all end? We need to stand united for our candidate - whoever it may be and whatever skills he may have. We even need to do this before we choose this candidate. Problem is, of course - how do we know for whom we should stand united?
Since arguing about that point is bad (ugh - if we do that we are not united!) we need to do it without arguing. Maybe let's do what they do in Pakistan - one party candidate dies - well her son can inherit the position. Wouldn't that be nice? We could be sooo united.
Come to think of it - why not take it one step further - this split between Republicans and Democrats doesn't that mean the country isn't united? Let's find a way to be united here, too. Maybe we can use the same method as in the primaries - let's just make that post inheritable, too.
No? Then argue your points - convince your friends, say what you think is important and campaign for your candidate. Sorry Tom, but this feel-good unity has a price attached to it which is much too high.
-
@Taliesan
Applause!
-
Can we have an end to one thing?
I for one stop listening to any candidate or advocate for any candidate who says they and they alone are "electable." I want to see what a candidate plans to DO if they are elected. You know, positions. It's all we have, as consumers of politicians. Of course, the promises are subject to revision depending on what Congress gets elected, and so on. And of course, they could be lying a bit. But then you have something to hold them to, right?
When a certain candidate, I'm not naming names, runs on "Hope," which was the slogan of another candidate's husband 16 years ago, just before, apparently, anybody started calling the Republicans the Party of Ideas, aside from Patrick Moynihan, former senator from New York, who used the term in the early '80s, well, you know, "hope" is not a campaign issue. What are we hopeful about? A lot of people are hopeful that electing a man of a certain pigment makes them feel noble, and that electoral hopefulness will heal the divide that's bothered us since, well, at least the Garden of Eden or the founding of the Church of Latter Day Saints, whichever came first.
What I mean is, why don't we read the campaign promises, the wonky stuff, and decide, instead of buying into one or another of the personality cults that are offered to us by fly-by-night marketing operations? Why do we still decide who to support based on the willful misinterpretation of some utterance among the millions made every day in every campaign, and even more, why do we entrust the selection of the president to the personality cults of the beltway media and the programs whose network has the initials of M.S.N.B.C.? I don't know. It's a mystery. That certain other candidate whose race shall not be named by fair-minded people has a campaign based on air, and the accumulated hatred of another candidate whose campaign rhetoric and style of a former day he is copying to a T.
And now I've said my piece. I take no sides, of course. I am Above the Fray. But my favorite candidate, I think, is both experienced and hopeful, but not the other one, who offers his followers only hope™.
-
My Fifteen Minutes
I'm the guy on the right.
-
Dear me, poking gentle fun at Salon readers?
Tom, do you want a dead cat stuffed in your mailbox? I mean you can bang a liberals wife doggy style in front of his eyes, but woe to he who fails to take him as seriously as he does.
-
Obama vs. McCain...
As long as either Obama or McCain come through for the general election, I know I'll have someone I feel well about voting for. Between the two, I would be stuck with choosing the best of two liked candidates for the first time in my life. I currently lean a fair bit more toward Obama.
The worst scenario I can imagine, and what I've skeptically prepared myself for over the past week or two, would be a Hillary / Romney general election. I'd then be left with my fingers crossed, hoping for Bloomberg to jump into the ring.
I'm tired of partisan politics, and both parties need a good 'boot in the ass' for the frivilous bickering over last 16 years. If neither the Democrats or Republicans can figure that out this election cycle, then it's time for 'the third option' again.
It's also worth noting, perhaps, that in the last eight years I had turned toward greatly admiring Bill Clinton as I listened to various speeches, as well as his sit downs with George Bush Sr. and Bob Dole. The last week and a half of his mucking about in this election cycle has pretty much sent his repute with me back into the negative.
-
Gee People stop being so serious for a moment and just enjoy the humor
Sure, Tom usually just uses humor to make a serious political point. In this case though, I think he was going for the laugh first.
Just classic, none too serious satire greatly enhanced by Tom's very unique drawing style.
No matter who you support, can you honestly say this doesn't reflect the truth. We're all guilty, and that's a reason to laugh a little, not point fingers at the "other side".
It struck me as a great example of good, old-fashioned comic strip humor that just happened to use politics as a basis.
Sure politics is a serious game, but the moment we become so serious, ideologically driven or pro/anti one side or the other that laughter and humor are verboten is the moment the message becomes alienating and suspect to most people.
And nothing proves that point better than the more extreme POV, overly serious and obnoxious posts/replies to a very politically mild strip, especially for Tom. ;-)
-
Hey, step back for a second
Here's the broad view, apparently visible only to those (the majority) who haven't descended into the mosh pit:
Democrats have three reasonably good candidates with reasonably similar positions. They divide the vote three ways because there isn't all that much difference between them and 90% or more of Democratic voters (and a huge chunk of independents) would be happy to vote for any one of them.
Republicans, for the first time in memory, are bitterly divided among four distinct factions: the True Believers (Huckabee, now that Thompson has finally bailed); the SuperRich and Corporate Yes-Men (Romney); the Pro-Military (McCain); the Fear Mongered (the declining Giuliani).
The dirty secret of the Bush years is that most of these factions don't agree on much of anything, and many of them hate the others' guts but just don't know it. Bush, as a Corporate Yes-Man disguised as a True Believer who was good at Fear Mongering and pandering to the Military, kept the coalition together until all his programs headed down the drain (with the sole exception of Tax Cuts, proving where his true values lie). None of the current GOP candidates is going to convince 90% of Republicans (much less independents) that they have their true interests at heart.
As divided as Democrats may seem to the select few who care passionately about one candidate vs. another, the truth is that Dems are united, Republicans are divided this time around.
Somebody get the memo to Bill Clinton, quick!