Letters to the Editor
Scientician
Published Letters: 525 Editor's Choice: 1
-
JoJo:
[Read the article: The Dan Gerstein sham]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I see your point, but I'd still rather people like Imus got their due and we can work on defending the weak who have this tactic abused against them.
Hell, long before Imus we saw Edwards' bloggers forced to quit for faux-outrage over being "anti-catholic" - Imus was just a case where justice prevailed, this concept has been abused by the mighty for quite some time.
The thing about the Imus one, is that I really don't believe you can fake that. It was genuine outrage by wide swaths of people, and the self-powered initiative of black employees of NBC and black journalists to speak up about Imus.
It's unfortunate that the media isn't good at telling the difference between widespread offense, and shits like Donahue trying to manufacture it. Another thing to work on.
-
They really are afraid of Edwards
[Read the article: The Politico: Exhibit A for our broken political press]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The more I think about it, the more I see them making sure that Edwards is declawed. Alone of the top tier Democrats he has shown the greatest propensity to challenge idiocy like the "war on terror" and the greatest desire to actually implement a national health care plan.
Edwards was first to get out of the Fox debates too.
I just haven't seen the same nonsense directed at Obama or Hillary as yet. A bit with the accent thing for hillary, but they haven't beat that story to death like they are with the haircut.
-
Politico
[Read the article: GOP presidential debate]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]They probably didn't ask your questions because they knew you and Crooks And Liars were behind them. That alone somehow disqualifies those questions in their minds - the "DFH's" as Digby would call us, are behind it - so they must resist.
I laughed out loud at the bit about perjury and Clinton in your write up Glenn. Hysterical.
-
Where were the inane questions?
[Read the article: GOP presidential debate]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Why no questions about Romney's favouite scientologist screed?
No questions about Giuliani and ferrets?
No questions on Baghdad markets for McCain? How about Romney's underwear?
The Democrats get questions about haircuts and being mouth runners, but the Republicans never seem to get such equivalent nonsensical questions.
It really shouldn't surprise anyone that a Republican would find Scientology appealing. If ever there were natural allies, the GOP and a money-driven dishonest and manipulative cult have much to discuss. And they're no strangers to cults, seeing as they never seem to mind the help of the Moonies either.
-
Where were the Haircut questions?
[Read the article: And the winner is ...]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The Democrats got asked about a bunch of unimportant nonsense that makes idiots like Drudge titter, but have no import to the business of the nation. So where was the questions about Romney's favourite scientologist books? Or his magic mormon underwear? Or McCain's recent strolls through Baghdad markets? Or Giuliani and ferrets?
Even MSNBC can't seem to treat the two sides evenhandedly.
I don't blame them per se, they're just buying into the Drudge memes of treating Democrats as unserious lightweights and leaving all the 'adult' questions to the Republicans.
-
McCain
[Read the article: What to watch for in the GOP debate]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]He did basically admit the Republicans had "lost their way" and if I parse it correctly, he is talking ethically, which is "admirable" for the current GOP that any of them would admit their massive ethical failures had anything to do with the 2006 loss.
It's only admirable in the way of a small child knowing something far above their age, but commonly known to adults, but still. When another of them got the question about ethics, he just waved it off with vague references to the lone Democrat implicated in anything over the past few years: william jefferson.
McCain's whining to Matthews about the yellow light and being cut off was pathetic though. Very unpresidential.
-
"Aggressive" foreign policy
[Read the article: GOP presidential debate]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's a phrase I heard at least one of them use. It's alarming that they are proud to run on having an "aggressive" foreign policy.
Aggression is not a virtue. Say "energetic" or "vigorous" perhaps, but taking it to aggression is frightening.
They're going to elect another war-monger. When did being pro-War (not just Iraq, but generally) become the GOP norm?
Fucking violent psychopaths.
-
Lieberman
[Read the article: GOP presidential debate]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I wonder how Joe feels about the fact that when asked which Democrat he would appoint to his cabinet, McCain was forbidden from using Lieberman, which the whole room found hilarious since he was their first, second and only choice for a "good" democrat: Ie, a Republican.
If he runs again in 2012, I see that footage making its way into a campaign ad.
-
Objects of derision and scorn
[Read the article: Have Bill Frist and right-wing bloggers plagiarized their new Iraq plan?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This is exactly how this nonsense should be dealt with.
Also, if I am correct, this is your first directly satirical and overtly humourous post Glenn, and it suits you well.
Finally:
Life is so Good!
Life is so Great!
Abortion is
What we hate!
Life is so Good!
Life is so Great!
End the war?
Now we're irate!