Letters to the Editor
Scientician
Published Letters: 525 Editor's Choice: 1
-
More on the House Bill
[Read the article: Lawbreaking telecoms still conniving to obtain immunity from Congress]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.03773:
Is the general page of links about the bill
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll1120.xml
Is the roll call of the vote, 227-189 with 5 GOPs voting aye and 5 Dems voting nay.
The 5 possibly amenable republicans:
Duncan
Flake
Gilchrest (SC)
Inglis
Jones (NC)
I know little about any of these, but it is intriguing that members from North and South Carolina would vote for the House version. These are not likely to be lean Democratic districts so maybe we have one of those mythical principled conservatives who actually applies principles.
Neither Paul nor Kucinich voted on the bill, and checking the congressional record I could find no statement by either on the matter.
Both of them should oppose it, and though Paul is largely not taken very seriously, he's beaten Thompson and Giuliani in a couple primaries now, it couldn't hurt to have Republican presidential candidate added to the roster of people opposing tel-co immunity for breaking the law.
I doubt anyone will pay much attention to what Kucinich does on this, but of course I'd still want him opposing it.
-
This is a great catch
[Read the article: The Headless McCain Smear]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]And the idea the media can't mention who was behind it is absurd. They don't have to claim it factually proven, even just to mention that many observers believed Rove and Bush were behind the smear. That's factually true and easily verifiable, lots of observers did make the obvious connection that the Bush campaign had started the smear.
They certainly have not held off speculating who is doing push polling for Huckabee. Or Romney's various scurrilous attacks.
-
commentary on a fair question raised by Glenn
[Read the article: Barack Obama: "Committed Christian -- Called to Bring Change"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The question is fair enough, but I think the problem with this analysis lies in trying to isolate the two ads and compare them solely on their own merits. The context matters a great deal, it just does and two people saying identical things in different contexts are really sending very different messages.
In short, the surrounding views, policies, history and target audiences of the two candidates are inseperable from the specific ads for any realistic analysis.
So even to agree Obama's flyer and Huck's Ad are both roughly equivalent in literal messaging is not to say the subtexts are identical. The audiences must also be considered, as SC Dems will hear different messages from this than will Huck's target audience.
In general the overt use of religion in American politics is disturbing and something I wish would be actively resisted somewhere (Libertarians should be explicitly against this I would hope, and liberals too). But Obama is a creature of his times and lives in the real world and is being "smeared" as a Muslim (that this is a "smear" at all is an indictment of US attitudes towards Islam). Huck is competing as an evangelical preacher running against a Mormon, a Catholic and a warrior. Even aside from his Christianist and theocratic policies, just in the realm of identity politics the SC electorate will see him as "one of them" more than the others. Obama has no such obvious religious advantage on Clinton or Edwards both of whose status as Christians is not in serious doubt.
But it's probable that Obama's campaign is being clever here and using a more overt appeal to religious similarity than would be traditionally allowed under a Democratic primary using the cover of the muslim emails.
Glenn question is worth watching for, to see if Obama goes rather "above and beyond" what might be reasonably necessary to counteract the Muslim smear into the realm of more traditional identity politicking of the types Democrats usually object to.
-
Also: Which criticisms of Huck?
[Read the article: Barack Obama: "Committed Christian -- Called to Bring Change"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Personally I'm only vaguely aware of any critiques of Huck on his religious ads. Moreso from Orcinus and others on his links to well known theocrats, and his previous calls for women to be submissive to husbands and now his recent talk of amending the constitution along religious lines.
For myself, my criticism of him has been along those lines.
Was Huck the one with the possibly subliminal cross in the background on one ad?
The one item you linked to Glenn didn't feel big enough to be a representative sample of general objection to Huckabee's relgious advertising. Can we see others, from higher traffic sites or sources?
-
Glenn:
[Read the article: Barack Obama: "Committed Christian -- Called to Bring Change"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You ask why Obama didn't distribute this flyer in other states, and even though I'm not an Obama supporter per se (nor an opponent), I'd offer a couple possibilities:
1) The obvious, that he believes it would backfire among the far less overtly religious populations of those states.
2) He didn't really believe the muslim smear was that big a deal, but having lost 2 primaries, and his Iowa momentum, he is panicking about it
3) Some internal polling indicates it (the muslim rumour) is more decidedly harmful to him in SC (Which would make sense since the state is so much more overtly religious).
I don't know which of these might be true, and it could be more than one.
As I said earlier the context matters and I don't agree that it is necessarily inconsistent to critique Huckabee's ads while giving Obama a tentative pass, or even critiquing him to a lesser degree, given the surrounding history and the policy preferences of the two men. For example a valid critique that definitely applies to Huck but not to Obama is that Huck's opponents stand to be harmed more by highlighting their religious beliefs (done subtly by highlighting Huck's own of course). Neither of Obama's opponents are from faith sects held in low regard in SC.
I don't want to equivocate for Obama. I'd rather he just be asked about this.