Letters to the Editor
jimmycarl
Published Letters: 60 Editor's Choice: 12
-
Who's to blame for Samuel Alito
[Read the article: Who's to blame for Samuel Alito?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's much worse than the inability to sustain a filibuster. And Kerry is part of the problem, not the solution. This game was lost in 2004. When Bush was reelected with a Republican Senate, the country was lost. That was the ballgame. Bush gets to shape the Supreme Court, the Constitution and the future. This is what our kids inherit.
The Democrats wanted to get cute and nominate someone with a war record to run against Bush in '04. So, they picked a guy spoke against the war but voted to entrust Bush with the decision to invade. The nominee, Kerry, was asked by Bush if he would vote the same way again, knowing in '04, what he didn't know in '02. There was only one possible answer and Kerry blew it! He says he would do it again! The Democrat's nominee didn't want to win badly enough. We needed someone who understood the stakes: that our traditions, our future, our environment, our freedom and, perhaps, our survival were on the line.
I don't know how we get out of this, but the reality is that we only have congressional elections every 2 years and presidential elections every four. If the other side controls Congress and the Executive, when multiple Supreme Court seats become vacant, that's it. Tilt. Game over.
How many times do progressives/liberals/independents have to get their hearts broken before they get it? The Democrats don't stand for anything. They are not an opposition party. They are not prepared to fight. They have no program to offer. The voters are not going give them power because it's their turn or because they seem inoffensive.
The Democrats are going to continue to do what their consultants tell them. They are going to continue to nominate "players" that their special interest groups will throw money at and they will continue to fail to generate passion among the electorate.
Gebhardt, Daschle, Lieberman, Edwards and Kerry all contributed to this mess and all lost in their quest to be President. Now, while they're getting their tails kicked by an unpopular President, they are preparing to give us Hillary Clinton, or Kerry again. How long, oh Lord?!
We need to admit that the two party system, never envisioned by the Founding Fathers, is killing us. Let's vote for Greens, independents or Democrats who demonstrate that they believe the country is at stake. In the meantime, we remember there was a reason we were so sorry in November 2004.
-
Why are we having Hillary jammed down our throats?
[Read the article: Handicapping 2008, or the Frist-Kerry buzz kill]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]As I recall, Hillary Clinton, the one term senator, voted for Bush's first round of tax cuts. We know she voted for the Patriot Act, before the Senate had a chance to read it. She voted to give up the congressional power to declare war and to put her faith in George Bush. It was her considered judgement that BUSH'S judgement should be the one to count in the matter of invading a country. Recently she came out for an anti-flag burning law, though there seems to be no epidemic of flag burning. TODAY she voted to renew the Patriot Act.
What has she done to deserve to lead the progressives, Democrats and independents into battle against George Bush? She'd be the first female president. So what! Alberto Gonzalez is the first Mexican-American Attorney General. Is that anything to be proud of?
Where were Hillary Clinton, Mark Warner, John Edwards, Evan Bayh and Bill Richardson when we needed them? When Bush's numbers were high? Do they believe he has broken the law? Would they encourage their party to impeach him if the Democrats win the Congress this year? I doubt it. They're 'players', the careful guys the smart money is always on.
The smart boys may be in for a surprise. There are a lot of us that weren't happy with getting Kerry-Edwards last time. ...Russ Feingold doesn't have the baggage. He voted against the war. He was brave enough to be the sole Senate vote against the Patriot Act.
Enough talk about Hillary. Give us someone who opposed Bush, when his poll numbers were in the 80s!
-
He's not a journalist!
[Read the article: Chris Matthews hearts Tom DeLay]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Why do any of you refer to Chris Matthews as a journalist? A journalist is someone who observes, investigates, writes a story and then reports it. Chris Matthews is an ex-congressional aide. Now he's a cable gas bag. The fact that he is on a so-called news network doesn't make him a newsman, or his show a news show.
He's no more interested in reasoned debate or fact finding than Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly. His continually putting words in his guests’ mouths proves it. His hypocrisy regarding the equivalence of impeachment for perjury, regarding Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky, as opposed to impeachment for abuse of power, torture, a war of aggression and violation of the Bill of Rights, confirms it.
-
High Crimes and Misdemeaners
[Read the article: Libby says Bush and Cheney authorized leaks of classified information]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]First, why do people think the President can just fire the Vice-President? Cheney was elected; Bush doesn't have the authority to fire him.
Second, just because Bush may not technically have broke a law, that doesn't avoid being forced out of office. High crimes and misdemeanors are defined by the House and Senate as they go along. Ask Andrew Johnson, Bill Clinton or Richard Nixon.
Today's lunchtime fantasy: We live in a country with an actual opposition party. They believe in the oath they took to the Constitution.
Now say it out loud: "impeachment". It feels good doesn't it? Now say it to your congressman.