Letters to the Editor

Letters posted here are associated with the following Salon Premium Member:

jimmycarl

Published Letters: 68     Editor's Choice: 12

  • Patriots worry about the Constitution first; politcal gain second.

    [Read the article: Pelosi: Impeachment is "off the table"]
    [Read more letters about this article: Here]

    No wonder people don't vote. No one represents them. This is how we keep getting into these messes. The smart boys, or in this case, Ms. Pelosi, are always looking after the main chance. She wants to take impeachment off the table because it might scare voters and prevent her from becoming Speaker of the House. She needs to worry about doing the right thing and then trusting the voters to do the same.

    It appears that Bush and Cheney have broken the law. The Democrats don't have to campaign on a platform that they will impeach them, but they should not promise not to either. When/if they get a majority, they must impeach. They took an oath to defend the Constitution, not to win the Presidency in 2008.

    Whether Cheney or Hastert ascend to office should not be the deciding factor. If the Democrats believe Bush or Cheney broke the law, they should impeach them and force the Senate to try them.

    History shows that in a two year period, from 2003-2004, America got rid of Vice President Spriro Agnew and President Richard Nixon. Whether Hastert, or someone else, plays the role of Gerald Ford, the principal of self governement will have won. If the Democrats can't see this, they've lost all purpose. If we don't insist on this, we've lost our country.

  • Kerry DID hedge his bet

    [Read the article: The Democrats and Iraq]
    [Read more letters about this article: Here]

    People, we all need to remember the 2004 race. In the course of the campaign, Bush asked the $64 question. There was only one answer, which Kerry should have hit out of the park, but he whiffed it.

    Bush asked, if you'd known then what you know today, would you still vote for the resolution. There was only one answer! Kerry gave the other one. Kerry said that yes he would have still voted yes because, even though he thought then that the administration didn't know what it was doing, and proved it since, he thought giving the President the authorization was the right thing to do.

    At least Edwards has said he now knows he blew it. Kerry was asked if he would say about Iraq, what he'd said about Vietnam: that it was a mistake. He said no.

    Kerry talks a lot about Bush's mistakes and about what we should do now. The first thing should be to stand up and say we made a bad mistake. Then, and only then, can we get out of this. The alternative, as Kerry should remember, is to wait Kissinger's "decent interval". In the end, the result will be the same: a country worse off than when we invaded, our country broke and divided and thousands dead in vain.

    So why do all the smart boys want to dump on Feingold? Ah, a prophet is cursed in his own land and time.

  • No, but it could be.

    [Read the article: Is this the end for Ann Coulter?]
    [Read more letters about this article: Here]

    Serious Notebook has it exactly right. This is the way to handle her, because, no the media have no conscience. I would extend Serious Notebook's idea to the local newspaper's and to the networks. But, don't write a letter that will be published. Write directly to the publisher. If they print her column, ask: do they still think she is just another legitimate opinion? What is the paper's position on publishing articles by those who advocate violence. If they think she should be heard, what other advocates of murder are they willing to publish? You'd like their criteria. ...OK, we're on a roll here. Write to the advertisers who sponsor the cable news shows that she appears on. Do they feel the same as she regarding 9/11 widows and victims?

  • What's this drivel?

    [Read the article: Revoltin' Bolton]
    [Read more letters about this article: Here]

    I can't believe that Salon articles are now leading with fashion critiques for the first two full paragraphs of an article. That's the kind of crap we mock the mainstream media for. I should haved logged off and watched the Daily Show. .........None of us wanted Bolton nominated, but he's there now. Have the hearings, have the vote and let's go back to focusing on what's really important. Bolton is not the problem; he's just a symptom. The problem is his boss and hers, Condoleeza Rice and George Bush.

  • This is another reason why I will never be a Democrat again.

    [Read the article: The Pennsylvania Green Party/GOP nexus]
    [Read more letters about this article: Here]

    The arrogance! Those votes do not belong to the Democrats. They belong to the voter, to give to whoever he wishes. Those contributors may have been Republicans but they were probably from Pennsylvania. What's wrong with giving it to whoever they want.

    What's wrong with the Green's using it to fund their petition drive? Can't the Democrats stand the competition? If they stood for something they wouldn't have to worry about third parties. And for crying out loud, abortion is not a platform. If that's all the Greens stood for, they wouldn't exist. It's the Democrats that use it as a fundraising bogeyman. Boo! Vote for us or your kid can't have an abortion.

    Where have the Democrats been the last five years? They voted to let Bush have his war, his tax cuts and the Patriot Act. They've been pipsqueaks about torture and domestic spying.

    Geesh. If Democrats think my voting for Nader was so wrong, in 2000, why haven't they made any noise in opposing him since? ...Never mind. Back to the point. The constitution doesn't recognize a two party system. They're not your votes. Earn them!

  • What he meant to say and what they should say

    [Read the article: The problem with Democraticese]
    [Read more letters about this article: Here]

    I think he meant to say that:

    Iraq will be a mess until its political issues are addressed. Terrorism is not state-sponsored. We need NATO to help. Poverty contributes to terrorism.

    Democrats need to repeatedly say:

    Terrorists don't want to kill us because they hate our freedom. They want to kill us because they hate US. George Bush hates our freedom.

    Jimmy's Cry in the Wilderness

    http://jimmysrant.blogspot.com/