Letters to the Editor
threegoal
Published Letters: 9
-
On playing not to lose vs. playing to win
[Read the article: Battling Democrats' indifference]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Everybody in our circles, and most Americans for that matter, agree that the Republican party has done a lot to deserve the loss of control of Congress. What bothers me to no end is that I haven't seen the national Democratic party do much to state the case that they deserve to win.
To use a sports simile, the national Democratic Strategy is like watching a football team with a strategy (?) to go three downs and out on every possession, punt, and then hope like hell for a fumble or interception. It's painful to watch and usually fails. Or alternately, given the multiple 2006 Dem versions of the Contract for America, it's like there's a different playbook for every possession, and sometimes different team members are following a different playbook on the same play.
But it's too painful to joke about. Have we not bottomed out? Do we need to overthrow (politically) the national leadership due to terminal in-the-minority disease? Can any Dem in Washington lead us? If so, please step up. The country is waiting.
-
Try for higher ground
[Read the article: How Obama learned to be a natural]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I read this article, previous Obama articles, and the commentaries on this one so far, and I am ticked. Can we look at this guy fairly?
If we assume that Salon does not have an agenda on Obama, or a preferred Democratic candidate, we have to ask how to fairly cover him.
You might start with avoiding tripe like "Today he drips with charisma and inspires fawning admiration from all quarters", which I find at the top of the page when I write this. This comment shows disrespect for the process some thoughtful people might have gone through in deciding that he could be the best candidate at this point. In fact a different summation might have reduced the hostility of many who commented before me and better reflected the tone of the article.
If you fight your way through the muck of the earlier parts of the article, you get some material to support the idea that he might be special -- he can learn from his mistakes and change. What a concept!! And how have we missed it for 6+ years! Meanwhile, watch Hillary weasel about her 2002 Iraq vote.
Add to that the fact that he got Iraq right the first time, and that he could express his reasoning succinctly, and you just might have someone with the gift of good judgment, clear thinking, and the ability to communicate. As he has said, if the last administration's most experienced guys were Rumsfeld and Cheney, perhaps time in grade is overrated.
Contrast Obama's ability to convey his reasoning with any Kerry 500 word verbal essay on a series of Senate votes, and I begin to understand why he is so appealing now and may become less so with more Senatorial service.
Why doesn't Salon try to understand how thoughtful people may think he is a great choice, and possibly the best, and try to move beyond being drinking the rock star/charisma kool-aid. A lot of Democrats have. And by the way I'm way closer to Hillary's age than Barack's.
-
Focus, please!!
[Read the article: Dan Rather stands by his story]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Rather (no pun intended) than waste too may back and forth arguments about the font, let's talk about what this is really about: CBS "News".
The key questions are about the suppression of the Abu Ghraib report and whether CBS, by picking just the right board of inquiry, went out of its way to produce an administration-friendly outcome.
Whether Viacom/CBS let perceived business interests take precedence over doing their duty as part of a free press is way more important than anything about Dan Rather, although I would also hope he is vindicated.
Bring on the depositions!
-
Consider both parents
[Read the article: Battle of the Bushes]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Unless one considers both sides of the son's ancestry, I think one is doomed to miss much in understanding the son.
Also remember that the mother is a Pierce, a direct descendant of another of America's worst presidents, Franklin Pierce, a racist northerner who contributed mightily to the run-up to the Civil War.
Her contributions to both his nature and nurture should not be overlooked.
-
Yes, partly as a statement on all this early primary craziness
[Read the article: Should Florida and Michigan vote again? ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Fairness alone -- a chance for the voters of these two large, important states to be part of the process -- in my opinion is reason enough to have contested votes in Florida and Michigan.
But another reason is to strike a blow against this whole trend toward front-loading the primaries and moving the dates so early in the election year.
There will always be a lot of candidates, except in those years when a semi-decent (or better) incumbent is running for term #2, which makes the whole primary season moot when it happens.
The job of the states early in the process will be to narrow the field, and the job of the later states will be to make the final determination. If you buy that premise, it makes a lot of sense for the early states to be smaller with cheaper media markets, leaving the latter states for those that survive the narrowing process.
Michigan and Florida could learn that they will get more attention(and probably more election-related tourism by the campaigns), by being closer to the end of the process than by cutting in line to be part of the beginning.
It's pretty sure to pay off for Pennsylvania!
And remind me why we as a country really need to know who the nominee will be until maybe just before the convention.