Letters to the Editor
david-smith
Published Letters: 99 Editor's Choice: 8
-
Re: "It's about Senate hearings for a replacement"
[Read the article: Rumsfeld's thumpin']
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"he was going anyway and Bush has to find a replacement that can be vetted by the lame duck Senate he controls now."
I don't think that was the motivation, but it's damn true that hearings are something to look forward to with great enthusiasm. It's simply one more of any number of consequences of this week's election that are only becoming apparent as some time passes. Like every other governmental function in which Congress is involved, confirmation hearings will ne taking place in a very specific context, i.e., PAYBACK TIME. The arrogance, the contempt, the total disregard by this White House for the views and interests of the entire Democratic Party - not to mention the half of the Amercian electorate that voted for them - means that the Simpering Imbecile's self-proclaimed "political capital" is completely non-existent. In short, not only do the Democrats have no incentive to cooperate with the Republicans, but it is very much in their interests to oppose them with every resource at their disposal. Accordingly, we can expect - at the very least - LOTS AND LOTS of, shall we say, challenging questions for every single nominee that has the balls to sit in front of the Senate.
Of course, one might argue that the Democrats should approach their "advise and consent" role in in a spirit of non-partisan cooperation with the Executive branch, for the greater good of the country as a whole. In precisely that spirit, they should conduct themselves with every ounce of the courtesy and good will to which they've been treated by Bush over the past 6 years. Maybe to start things off, the Democrats can subpoena Cheney and Patrick Leahy can tell him to go fuck himself on the floor of the Senate.
-
Less Revealing about Lieberman than about Salon Readers
[Read the article: The Bush plan gets some love -- and you can guess from whom]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The topic of this article is hardly surprising, inasmuch as it simply reinforces the extent to which Lieberman continues to be the same greasy, self-serving sack of shit he’s always been. On the other hand, the lack of insight and sheer bigotry reflected in these responses by Salon’s readers is truly a revelation. Lamont’s fault? The man spent a fortune of his own money, defeated the scumbag/three-term incumbent for his own party’s nomination, and lost the general election only with massive crossover support from Republicans. He did absolutely nothing wrong, and there likely wasn’t a single thing Lamont could have done to have changed the final result. And no, a scheming political whore like Lieberman wasn’t going anywhere, whether Lamont “looked him in the eye” or kicked him in the goddamn balls. Additionally, Lieberman isn’t preparing any run for the Presidency (that hideous prospect is mercifully behind us); moreover, whether or not the skunk bolts for the Republican Party is dependent on one factor, and one factor alone: the prospects of a Democratic retention of the Senate. Lieberman cares about nothing but keeping his reptilian claws on the levers of power, and neither “principle” nor any other factors of concern to flesh-and-blood human beings will ever stand in his way. Finally, the most consequential and revealing aspect of this article is the casual Jew-hatred promiscuously exhibited throughout these responses. While the positions of architects of the war like Cheney and Rumsfeld, apologists like Powell and Rice, and rabid supporters distributed throughout the Republican establishment are correctly described as a function of neo-conservative fanaticism or mind-numbing stupidity, it’s only the views of Lieberman that evidence the disloyalty of an “Israel-first” allegiance. There’s a perfectly apt label for such smears – anti-Semitism – and it’s tough to conceive of a more effective way to discredit the entire Left with the foul stench of ignorance and bigotry.
-
Where's his frilly pink panties?
[Read the article: The president's tears]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]God, that picture is like catnip, the funniest thing I've seen in weeks! Didn't anyone have a nice frilly pair of pink panties he could use to wipe those big, wet crocodile tears off his face?
Bush is becoming so much like Nixon, it's freaky. The simple fact is that he's become so uniquely despised -- and despicable -- that it's now virtually impossible to locate any core personality that others might recognize as truly human. He is consumed with self-pity, as petty, small-minded and thoroughly self-absorbed a human being as I've ever encountered, and I can think of no misfortune to befall him that wouldn't cause me to giggle with amusement.
-
Cut out the middleman
[Read the article: The Fix]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Hey, maybe Judge Seidlin could cut out the middleman, and order that Britney be interred with Anna Nicolle and her son Daniel in the Bahamas. A little more bang-for-the-buck, and a chance to wrap up a couple of big celebrity stories into one.
-
The Time to Stop this Scumbag is NOW!
[Read the article: Will the Wall Street Journal become another Fox News?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Is there a single human being that has done more to undermine the democratic character of the political process in the United States than this loathsome fascist scumbag? I sure can't think of any. The time to put a stop to this monster's plans to expand his propaganda empire is right goddamn now. Of course, those willing to do so will have to deal with the usual invisible hand/free market horseshit so beloved by the followers of Republicanism, the response to which is that the presumably God-given right to accumulate a virtually unlimited concentration of news media in the hands of a single individual is a new, and profoundly undemocratic, innovation. Again, the time to address that state of affairs is right now. Specifically, we need not only to bring back the Fairness Doctrine, but strict limits on the number and type of communications media that can be controlled by a single individual or organization.