Letters to the Editor
Picko
Published Letters: 265 Editor's Choice: 11
-
@ FilthyHarry
[Read the article: A Democrat in '08? In theory, yes]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think there's a good reason the conservatives have been kicking our asses - they have fought for thirty years to get where they are today. On the other hand, it seems like many Democrats want to give up after one year because their party hasn't turned things around within that time. Change doesn't happen overnight. In their rise to power, whenever the Republicans lost elections or were defeated on issues, they got up, dusted themselves off, and tried again. And they eventually got what they want.
As for the social conservatives, it's hard to say that they haven't got ANYTHING for their dedication to the Republican cause. Especially within the last seven years they've done quite well for themselves. And part of that is because they've become somewhat more pragmatic in pursuing political power. Many of them have realized that incrementialism works. Sometimes it really is "slow and steady" that wins the race.
-
Correction
[Read the article: A Democrat in '08? In theory, yes]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Ronald Reagan received more votes in 1984 (54,455,472) than Gore did in 2000 (51,003,926).
But Gore did get more than Clinton did in either election (44,909,806 in 1992 and 47,400,125 in 1996).
-
drichmond
[Read the article: A Democrat in '08? In theory, yes]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Given the blind venom that the conservatives and republicans went after Bill I think IMHO that it is easily conceivable that Hillary will have an even larger target painted on her."
I think the reason they might be more successful with Hillary is that many people found Bill likable on a personal level, whereas Hillary is less charismatic (how's that for an understatement). And let's face it, there's also the gender thing for the Republicans to use. Although they'll really have their work cut out for them to top the viciousness with which they opposed Bill. (Of course, they gave it the old college try with Gore and Kerry, which shows that no one is immune.)
"And as a progressive I find her repugnant on so many different levels, sad to say she and Schumer represent my state but not me."
Clinton might be a better senator if she wasn't always positioning herself to be president, although it's hard to imagine her standing on principle about anything. Other than that, I don't understand why Schumer and Clinton are so cautious - their Senate seats are so safe that they really could afford to take some risks. The only two reasons I can figure for why we don't have more progressive Senators is (1) Long Island and (2) upstate New York. BTW, why the fuck doesn't Naussau county get rid of Pete King (R)?
but you did say one thing I have to respond to
""they have fought for thirty years to get where they are today."
that is true and what the democrats have failed to do is to unify like their opponents and fight at all, they have capitulated in fear of being seen as weak and ultimately that has shown them to be weak because they have no unifying principles that they as a group stand up for.
again my humble opinion, otherwise I think you raise valid points."
The thing about the Democrats is that since we only hold the congress at present - and since Democrats notoriously lack the party discipline that the Republicans have developed (BTW, that party discipline was something that developed over time: the Republicans have much more party discipline now than in the 1970's)- the Democrats aren't a monolithic entity. We have Democrats in conservative parts of the country who are in our caucus but can't be relied on the deliver the votes we need (I'm not sure, however, we would be holding those seats if we had run more liberal candidates in those districts). It is truly infuriating when candidates like Hillary and Schumer, who don't have to answer to a red-state electorate take such wrong-headed positions. Maybe they need a good primary challenge like Lieberman had in Connecticut (although hopefully with different results).
Of course, having a Democratic president would help some too, since we wouldn't have to worry about the veto as much, so we wouldn't need supermajorities to get anything done.
There's a good book that I recommend to anyone - Rick Perlsteins' "Before The Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus." I think that book provides a good blueprint for how political revolutions start.
-
@ paulpsd7
[Read the article: We'll take that as a "no"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Reality check: Nancy Pelosi represents the 8th district in California - in other words she represents most of San Francisco. She has never received less than 75% of the vote in her congressional races. Her voter base is extremely liberal and probably overwhelming anti-war. I'm sure if Nancy Pelosi could snap her fingers and withdraw the troops, she would.
-
@ judyinnm
[Read the article: We'll take that as a "no"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Actually the Republicans have made it their strategy just to obstruct the Democrats in everything the Democrats try so that in 2008 they can run against the "do nothing" congress. I'm wondering what substantive compromise on the war would survive passage in both the House and Senate and also Bush's veto. I really don't see the purpose in imputing all sorts of nefarious motives to the Democrats in the face of something that may just be a mathematical deficiency in votes.
-
@ akira1
[Read the article: We'll take that as a "no"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Fair enough. They could play the "shut down the government" game. It didn't work so well for Newt when he tried it, but who knows, maybe it could work for the Democrats. It's a risky tactic, but maybe circumstances call for it. Do you think this is an approach that a majority of voters would endorse?
-
@ paulpsd7
[Read the article: We'll take that as a "no"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thank you. That sounds like a sound and sober analysis of the situation.
-
@ judyinnm
[Read the article: We'll take that as a "no"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Maybe you're right. It would be interesting to see what would happened if they tried that tactic. Right now it seems like they're too afraid of being accused of "not supporting the troops" if they try to radically de-fund the war. I think this tactic requires a lot more balls that the present crop of Democrats seem to have. This lot seem pathologically risk-adverse. We're certainly not going to accomplish anything unless the Democrats start showing some guts for a change. At least the Republicans have the courage of their crazy convictions...