Letters to the Editor
Picko
Published Letters: 272 Editor's Choice: 11
-
Bush really is a uniter!
[Read the article: How can I love my Republican parents?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I couldn't help sympathizing with the writer of this letter. Until very recently I had a difficult time talking with my father. He's always been an emotionally distant person, even during my childhood, and as an adult this was further exacerbated by the fact that we have very little in common. The one interest we do have in common is politics, but my dad has always basically been a Republican (he voted for Nixon both times, and the only Democrat he voted for between 1968 and 2004 was Jimmy Carter). I once asked my mom why dad was always so non-responsive whenever I tried to engage him in political discussions, and she told me, "He thinks you look down your nose at his political opinions." To which I said, "That's actually pretty perceptive of him."
Well, flash forward to 2007. My dad now regrets having voted for Bush in 2000, expresses admiration for our senator Hillary Clinton, and votes Democratic (he voted for Kerry in 2004). I think he dislikes Bush even more than I do, because I never placed any faith in the man whereas he probably feels a bit betrayed. Well, anyway, my dad and I have now become closer than we've ever been, all due to the rampant assholery of the current administration! Thanks, W!
(As a side note, my brother, who was a born-again Christian for a while, recently confided that he's become an agnostic again - in no small part because of Bush and the religious right, and now we've become close again as well.)
-
The flipside
[Read the article: Gloria Borger & the media's reverence for Karl Rove]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The thing I've always found ironic about the media's praise of Karl Rove's "genius" is that it seems inadvertently to concede what a dud George W. Bush really is. Does anyone need to be reminded that W. lost the popular vote to Al Gore in 2000 and only won the electoral vote on rather dubious grounds? Or that his margin of victory over John Kerry was so close that many, including some within the White House, thought that W. was going to lose? Or that Bush, with the exception of episodic bumps caused by events such as 9/11 and the Iraq invasion, has been a consistently unpopular president? It's as if to say, "Look at what a genius Karl Rove is - he got this clown Bush into the White House for not just one but two terms! Bush has managed to mess up everything he has ever touched, and yet somehow we got him for an entire 8 years! Bravo, Rove!"
If you want to look at Republican landslides, take a look at the presidential maps for 1972, 1980, 1984 and 1988 - in fact every presidential election which the Republican won in my lifetime before Karl Rove managed Bush's campaign. Even Bush's dad beat Dukakis by an almost 8% margin in 1988! Granted this is probably more reflective of demographic trends than anything else, but even if so, it makes me wonder how Republicans would have fared without Rove's "genius."
-
Ah, I get it, it was a joke!
[Read the article: National Review's new tough guy, Mark Hemingway]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If. You. Claim. That. Something. Was. A. Joke. Shouldn't. It. At. Least. Be. Funny?
-
Commander in Chief
[Read the article: The D.C. establishment versus American public opinion]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]While I was reading this article, a stray thought came into my head about Bush's grandoise claims about his expansive powers as Commander in Chief. His basic argument is that he should be allowed to do whatever he wants because he is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, and any sort of curb on his powers would compromise him in that role. Aside from the fact that this is a highly dubious argument, wouldn't it then be all that more important to fire him (i.e. impeach him) if he is performing that role poorly? When it comes to claiming power, Bush is the General of Generals, but when it comes to accountability, whatever goes wrong is the fault of the generals on the ground. If the president is supposed to be the Great Protector to whom we should cede virtual omnipotence in order to keep us safe, doesn't that put a greater onus on him not to fuck up?