Letters to the Editor
jimmycarl
Published Letters: 68 Editor's Choice: 12
-
We need real debates giving everyone a shot
[Read the article: Caught on tape]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If we really believe in democracy we must stop following the media's compulsion to assign "leaders" by their poll standings or campaign war chest. Let that be desided by who has accumulated the most delegates.
Have real debates. There are a many candidates. Tough! Pair them off randomly. Solicit college debate coaches as moderators. Have the moderator select 2 or three topics that the two candidates debating, that night, disagree on. Let the candidates decide which one, two or three they would like to debate and then let them have at it.
Over the course of time leading up to the primaries, all would have had an opportunity to debate someone. All would get equal debate exposure. Issues would be thoroughly vetted for the public.
Screw Hillary Clinton and John Edwards. They voted for the war and for the Patriot Act. Now they want to give us the same homogenous, safe shit that the Democrats always do: people like them!
-
Censure and Impeach. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, be damned
[Read the article: Feingold brings it on]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think Feingold would rather Bush be impeached. He knows, however, that as a senator he can't vote to convict until, and unless, the House votes to impeach. A senator can introduce a motion to censure. Why wait? Why choose? Censure now, and then if the House ever does decide to impeach, try Bush then.
I become nearly physically ill when I read Harry Reid's contention that the Senate has more important business than upholding and defending the Constitution. History will record that the American experiment failed when we ceased to have any opposition party. My children deserved better!
-
And why should we now care if Democrats win or lose in 2008?
[Read the article: Democrats' responsibility for Bush radicalism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]A few have argued here that by not giving Bush whatever he wants, the Democrats risk losing in 2008. Why should we care about their chances? What is the point of electing them in 2008? What have we gotten for their victory in 2006? Non-binding resolutions. Promises not to defund the war. Promises not to impeach. No repeal of the Patriot Act. No repeal of the war authorization. No repeal of the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Now this abomination.
Name me examples where these congressional Democrats have used all the powers at their disposal to protect and defend the Constitution. List them.
-
I'm having a hard time, as an independent
[Read the article: War Room contest: Pick the Democrats' bumper sticker]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Democrats: It's the Constitution, but we're stupid.
Republicans: The Constitution is stupid.
Democrats: It's the Constitution, but we're pussies.
Republicans: The Constitution is for pussies.
-
I don't get this. What's the crime here?
[Read the article: Craig to cop: "I'm a respectable person"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Larry Craig is a pig of a politician. That's not the charge. Given all the corruption and the violations of the Constitution that the Senate has treated us to, why are they after this guy, even if he is guilty? Disorderly conduct? ...And given recent history, wouldn't he have had to actually perform some filthy acts in a mens room, to bring the U.S. Senate into disrepute?
But he didn't. I'm not convinced he did ANYTHING. Some cop, sitting on a toilet stool, is desperate to end his stakeout and sees some guy with shiny shoes, in the next stall, and busts him.
This sounds like false arrest. And it is plausible that someone would plead guilty to a crime they didn't commit. Jails are full of such people. This one happens to be famous. Typically, the media, including Salon, is along for the ride.
-
Souter went against the wind
[Read the article: Neither was ours]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What is drlimerick talking about? Souter went against the wind. He was one of the four good guys who voted for Gore in Bush v. Gore.
While his resignation might have woken the country up, in 2000, it is probably good that he stayed. After September 11, we needed SOMEBODY on the court that didn't want to help turn the country into a dictatorship. He showed that in the Hamden case, among others.
-
I have an answer to doc5467
[Read the article: When Rudy goes waterboarding]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The reason I might sit on my hands is due to the fact that the Democrats have DEMONSTRATED their lack of opposition to torture. They have not made it a campaign issue. They have not put holds against things like the Military Commissions Act, or been willing to fillibuster. The Democratic Senate has been unwilling to censure Bush/Cheney for torture. The Democratic House has taken impeachment off the table for this lawlessness.
As the Republicans have demonstrated that they will accuse the Democrats of being weaklings anyway, that cannot be the reason. There is only one other conclusion, and it ultimately is why I may not vote: The Democrats agree with the Republicans concerning these powers. They want the freedom to torture, disappear prisoners and wiretap, if one of them becomes President. The only way to convince me otherwise is for Clinton, Obama, Biden, Dodd etc. to use every tool at their disposal to stop this shit NOW.
-
So why would we vote Democratic again?
[Read the article: What happened to the Senate's "60-vote requirement"?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What's the red line for Congressional Democrats? Is there one?
The war? A Democratic Congress got us in; another Democratic Congress keeps paying for it.
Torture? No, they've repeatedly (as recently as yesterday) proven they won't fall on their sword there.
Disappearances? No. Failed to repeal Military Commissions Act.
Wiretapping? No.
Admitted law breaking? No.
The Senate will not oppose or censure. The House will not impeach. How bad would the administration have to be, what crime could be so serious, that Democrats would act?
-
If you are for the Constitution, why go work for Hillary?
[Read the article: Goodbye, Mr. Bush]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So, Blumenthal is going to go work for Hillary. I liked his writing. Too bad he didn't really mean it. If one is for the Constitution and against torture, how can one join Clinton's campaign? She has done NOTHING to protect the Constitution or to fight torture. She's part of the problem, not the solution.
-
Before we get too snide
[Read the article: The campaign ad we'd like to see]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]let's remember some things about these two. Kucinich is the only candidate for the Democratic nomination who voted against the Patriot Act ("because I read it"), against the war authorization and against the Military Commissions Act. He has, however, introduced articles of impeachment. Sissies don't do that.
And speaking of impeachment, just as the Republicans were preparing to impeach the last President, Larry Flynt brought down two successive Republican Speakers of the House, Newt Ginrich and Bob Livingston.