Letters to the Editor
CT Voter
Published Letters: 136 Editor's Choice: 17
-
I can tell you What's the matter with CT?
[Read the article: What have you done for me lately?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Lieberman got reelected because Republicans and Independents voted for him, not Democrats. Lieberman successfully misled the public about his stance on Iraq. Since then, not that it matters, the public approval of Lieberman has dropped, significantly.
Shays? Ran a similar campaign to Lieberman's. Cried about how horrible the war was, tearfully pledged to bring the troops home, and then returned to status quo, once safely reelected.
I've heard that there's a potentially strong Democratic candidate going after Shays' seat, so you can expect that Shays will suddenly be concerned about our troops again, in a few months from now. Make that a Friedman from now.
Nonetheless, Connecticut voters have some 'splaining to do after the last election.
-
Who's villifying anyone?
[Read the article: What have you done for me lately?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Shays is certainly a moderate Republican, but he didn't change his tune on Iraq until his reelection was in jeopardy. His characterization of Abu Ghraib as a sex ring was seriously bizarre and wrong. He's a reliable Republican vote. If pointing this out is "villifying" him, well, then, I guess I'm guilty. I hope he gets denied the committee deal that he wants--I'm sure statements like the above about Dems doing nothing to help the US "win" in Iraq will be very popular with those doling out committee assignments--not that Shays would would ever flip flop on an issue to save his political ass--and that he retires.
-
mizbinkley...
[Read the article: What have you done for me lately?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't mind even if you did mean it as a dig at me...while Shays is a moderate Republican, rather than some crazed, frothing Tom Tancredo like Republican, and therefore, infinitely preferable, he remains an obstacle to getting us out of this war. And, in one sense, an even bigger pain in the ass than those who shout for more Guatanomos, because those "moderate" Republicans like Shays fool their constituencies into thinking that they won't side with the crazies when, in fact, they usually do.
Shays comments about Abu Ghraib reveal how sensible he actually is. Torture to get information? That's torture. Torture that's part of some kinky frat boy behavior? That's not torture! That's a sex ring! Ewwwwwwww. We in Connecticut have to oust this individual.
-
Why is Dana Milbank even relevant??
[Read the article: All the news that's fit to print?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I agree--that was a great line about Shays:
"vigorous defense of the administration in odd-numbered years."
and I hope Shays' opponent uses it in 2008 to dump that smary jerk.
But: Dana Milbank just mouths conventional "wisdom" in his columns, and, his appearances on Olbermann, so why is he relevant?
A stupid question, perhaps, given the Post's stable of columnists (Kurtz and Broder immediately leap to mind, for some reason)...but why is crappy reporting and commentating become so acceptable these days?
-
Talk about crappy writing....
[Read the article: All the news that's fit to print?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]That should read "Why HAS crappy reporting and commentating become so acceptable these days",
and Chris Shays is smarmy, not smary.
Need more caffeine. NOW!
-
Actually, what WOULD be better
[Read the article: A fair question]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]is if the Democrats actually won some of these critical legislation battles, or refused to back down, continually, for fear of being called wimpy. Which they're going to be called no matter what they do, so what's all this compromising for, anyway?
If sinking to the level of vapid debate so embraced by the right wing is the way to do it, I say sink away, people! The Dems seem genetically incapable of matching the Republicans' rhetoric (mother of all tax increases comes to mind, immediately....surrendocrats...etc) Juvenile? Yes. Misleading? Certainly. Effective?? Well, all you have to know to answer that is that despite the results of the 2006 elections, Republicans and President Bush are still getting pretty much everything they wanted from the Democrats, who are THE MAJORITY. Go figure.
Something needs to change, and fast. If snappy soundbites that really don't mean anything do the trick, I say go for it.
-
FEMA: We're not really reporters, but we did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night....
[Read the article: FEMA's phony reporters]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So what if FEMA employees can masquerade as reporters and no one really notices? What does that say about the public's attitude about journalists?
Perhaps a more charitable interpretation is that FEMA employees are awesome actors, man. And not that journalists and reporters have become so vapid and stupid that no one even notices when they've been replaced by simulated reporters.....
-
@Jim
[Read the article: A fair question]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Is it really because we're so daintily intellectual that we don't play unfair, that clever lies don't come trippingly to our tongue
No. It's because Democrats seem to keep wanting to believe and behave as if the Republicans won't do the crap that they, in fact, like clockwork, do. The Democrats are the Charlie Browns in the political process, and the Republicans are the Lucys.
I'd like the discussion to be about substantive issues. I loathe the slogans of the Republicans, and how effective those slogans are. I am appalled that the Administration and the Republicans have their very own network at this point (although I do wonder why so many of the family values crowd is so willing to appear on the "news" division of easily the sleaziest network on the block....but I wander)--But here's the thing: the Democrats won't get into the dirt with the Republicans and don't seem able to combat them any other way, and I am incensed with their continued bumbling.
And yes, John Kerry probably would have loved to Swift Boat George Bush--but that example highlights the problem: Kerry seriously underestimated the skeeziness of his Republican opponents, and got sunk as a result. Charlie Brown, anyone? And he was helpless after that episode to combat it, because whatever he said, or did would have been dismissed as sour grapes. It's what makes me want to set my hair on fire: why can't the Democrats see the reality that is the Republican party?????
I echo the commenter who said "It's the narratives, stupid".
-
Well, you'd probably get more information from the phony one....
[Read the article: Why not a phony press secretary, too?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The only thing Ms. Perino really seemed certain about was Iran.
I'm sure that's just a coincidence though.
It's happening right beneath our noses, isn't it?