Letters to the Editor
CT Voter
Published Letters: 136 Editor's Choice: 17
-
Perino wool...Love it!
[Read the article: Why not a phony press secretary, too?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I can't believe I'm saying something in defense of Dana Perino (must be late Friday afternoon and my brains are scrambled) but I did hear her on Wait, Wait Don't Tell Me, and she didn't sound like a complete moron, truthfully.
Then again, not sounding like a complete moron is a pretty low bar, isn't it?
-
Charlie Brown? I'll hold that football for you this time, I really really will....
[Read the article: Hillary Clinton and the Mukasey bandwagon]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]but that she hasn't reached a conclusion on whether to support his nomination
She (and her campaign) will issue statements detailing her deep concern over Mukasey's unwillingness to admit waterboarding is torture and in the process collect somewhat favorable coverage from the credulous press. Think Lindsey Graham. Think Arlen Specter. Express concerns. Get lauded for being independent. And then vote the way the Administration wants you to, anyway, so you don't actually pay any political price for it.
Same with Clinton. Express concern. Say how disquieting it is that candidate X for X position won't denounce practice Y of the Bush Administration. Look tough. And then, for fear of being labeled a wimp, BE A WIMP, by not opposing the nomination. Senator Clinton isn't going to vote against this nomination, but she'll do enough posturing to lead people on.
Nauseating.
And that doesn't apply just to Clinton--it applies to every individual who expresses their heartfelt concern and then goes and votes another way.
-
I think my head is exploding...
[Read the article: Those uncompromising Democrats]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Up is down. Black is white. Democrats in Congress think:
"the need to show they can govern" outweighs "the fear that too much compromise will anger their liberal base."
They can't govern. All they do is compromise. Their "liberal base", that crazy lunatic fringe that captures the majority of Americans, is already pissed of royally about the performance of Democrats in Congress. So their solution might be to compromise more???!@#?? WTF?
They aren't just shooting themselves in the foot. They're shooting themselves in the face, this time.
-
WTF?
[Read the article: Those uncompromising Democrats]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Just because the Republicans refused to do so when they had the chance, is no reason for us to refuse.
So go along with illegal searches and seizures, go along with a diasatrous policy in Iraq, go along with neglecting Afhganistan, go along with torture, go along with scragging working and middle class families out of a needed revision to healthcare, go along with obscene amounts of money being spent on the "war on terrorism", just go along. That way, the Dems can go home and say "Well, at least we weren't like the Republicans. We took the high road today and compromised."
On the very principles that make our country great.
Fabulous idea.
-
Politics of hope? More like hope springs eternal....
[Read the article: The politics of hope]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...Clinton was serious about having a "dialogue" --
She's not serious about having a dialogue--she's serious about looking like she's serious about having a dialogue--that's a couple links removed from actually having a dialogue.
-
Hillary = the human equivalent of catnip to the Republicans....
[Read the article: Clinton and the GOP's anti-endorsement]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's not fear--it's anticipation. Senator Clinton will be a magnet that draws out voters who otherwise would have sat this one out...those voters might be lukewarm towards Rudy 9/11 - 24/7, but they'll probably force themselves to get over it, in order to make sure Clinton doesn't get elected.
And just imagine the effect that might have on everyone running on the Democratic ticket. Fabulous!
-
It would be historic AND unprecedented...
[Read the article: Note to Perino: Buy dictionary, history book]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]to quote Ms. Perino, if THIS Congress defined THIS President...
And Irving143 is right: why do you keep bringing up stuff that happened before 2001 and the blowjob heard round the world?? What are you? Some sort of accuracy freak?
-
It would be historic AND unprecedented...
[Read the article: Note to Perino: Buy dictionary, history book]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]to quote Ms. Perino, if THIS Congress defied THIS President...
And Irving143 is right: why do you keep bringing up stuff that happened before 2001 and the blowjob heard round the world?? What are you? Some sort of accuracy freak?
-
Nah, it's not just you who finds it disappointing...but hey, that's reality...
[Read the article: "Boys against girl," Part II]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If Obama's campaign had described his performance as one black man against a bunch of white people (paraphrasing your comment below), there'd be a giant heap of "Get over it, dude, and stop trying to exploit racial issues for your own gain".
Clinton isn't asking for votes because she's a woman, or so the campaign claims, but framing this as men piling on poor widdle Hillary is a smart tactic, because it is going to appeal to some voters--Rick Lazio did his campaign a real disservice when he walked over to her during one debate and shook his finger at her. I wasn't living in New York, and couldn't vote, and really didn't care much for Clinton, but that creeped me out, and made me want to vote for her. Overreacting? Probably, but it hit me, a woman, on a gut level.
And the Clinton campaign knows this, and is going to implicitly exploit it by framing the debate in the same way. It's not right, and if any other minority candidate tried to do the same thing, they'd probably get creamed. So it's not right, and it's hypocritical, but it also works. Ick.
-
Bin who?
[Read the article: Beware the Google]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I thought he wasn't really concerned about him. Why should we be listening to him?
But that's a nice linkage there: bin Laden, MoveOn, and Code Pink.
Reminiscent of "Saddamm Hussein.....blah...blah...blah...and the attacks of 9/11", followed by Cheney's hilarious statement that he had no idea why Americans thought Hussein was behind 9/11.
And in fact, maybe this is just the beginning of a talking point to be unveiled soon: Osama, MOveOn, and Code Pink. Osama, MoveOn, and Code Pink. Repeatedly linked. And the "Osama-Obama" link grows, as a result.
Nah. This chowderhead isn't capable of such subtlety, is he?
-
I'm sorry, but this:
[Read the article: Schumer's ruminations]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]From this administration, we will never get somebody who agrees with us on issues like torture and wiretapping. The best thing we can hope for is someone who will depoliticize the Justice Department and put rule of law first."
just sounds like some multiple personality disorder at work.
Wouldn't someone who put the rule of law first agree with the Democrats on issues like torture and wiretapping? Or is there some subtlety here that I'm missing??
What a crock o'crap.