Letters to the Editor
maniondl
Published Letters: 57 Editor's Choice: 1
-
The shaming of McClellan has already begun
[Read the article: Scott McClellan on the "liberal media"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Caught a bit of it on CNN this a.m.--my background noise for drinking coffee and playing with my two-year old before starting the day--and I saw the ever-partisan Frances Townsend, former Homeland Security adviser to Bush. The now-CNN paid "contributor," said that advisers to the president should speak up when they have policy concerns: "Scott never did that on any of these issues as best I can remember or as best as I know from any of my White House colleagues. For him to do this now strikes me as self-serving, disingenuous and unprofessional."
She also said, in a slight contradiction, that Scotty was never at the really important military meetings anyway, so he wouldn't know what was really going on in order to form an opinion that the president was lying/was mislead. He was "out of the loop."
So, shorter Townsend: "McClellan is a liar who doesn't even have the facts at hand to lie about." Riiiiight.
Can't find the youtube, but there's a link to some hardcopy Townsend idiocy in my sig.
-
VP
[Read the article: The other 18 million]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I am a lifelong Democrat. I am a woman who has had significant experience in male-dominated professions filled with a near-complete absence of women at the uppermost echelons of power. I am a proud feminist GenXer, despite the unpopularity of that term in my generation. I admire Senator Clinton's devotion to the causes of women and children and believe she has greatness in her.
I hope those bonafides help count me in the "fair-minded" blog posters, because I take issue with your claim that putting another female candidate--who is not Hillary Clinton--on the ticket would be, in effect, tokenism.
Kathleen Sebelius is an EMINENTLY qualified candidate for the vice presidency based on her Gubanatorial experience, her personal, pragmatic, and bi-partisan style, and her policies, which are quite complementary to Obama's. I would be so proud and excited to have her on the ticket because I would know that she earned it; Obama will, I am sure, vet quite thoroughly, deliberately, and fairly.
According to Olbermann, Clinton's promise to concede came not out of her sense of party loyalty but because her own highest-ranking supporters persuaded her to do so, and to do so soon. Her speech was ungracious, and many feminists and Hillary supporters have remarked upon her inappropriate behavior. If Hillary does not full-throatedly support and work hard for Obama--whomever his choice for VP is--I will find her behavior unforgivable; I will feel duped and that the Clinton haters were right all along.
Yes, Jesse Jackson took it to convention, but he was treated differnetly because he presented no credible challege (and btw, Dems lost miserably that year, as they have every time the race has gone to the convention). This race is close enough, and the rhertoric has sewn enough of a breech that it was/is imperative that Clinton show genuine enthusiasm for the nominee (and certainly would have demanded the same from Obama were the shoe on the other foot).
And, for the record, I think you are an excellent writer/pundit(loved your debate with Jim Madison even though I disagreed with your assertion that Clinton didn't have to apologize to Obama for the assassination remark). I do, however, think your personal feelings for the Clinton candidacy have altered your sense of proportionality in your editorial coverage. You praise Obama with a few lines, but the majority of your columns critique him. It's not your right to critique him that many of us question, it's the proportionality and tone of your coverage about Obama that gives us pause.
And, in case you're wondering why there's so much vitriol in these letters, it's because we think you're smart enough to know better, and we feel invisible--we keep writing in and never getting acknowledged for legitimate points. It becomes snark-worthy after a while.
-
If
[Read the article: John McCain then and now]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If the best thing Camp McSame can come up with to rile their base is guilt-by-association, then Obama is going to win in a landslide.
-
Hope
[Read the article: Supreme Court restores habeas corpus, strikes down key part of Military Commissions Act]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I can't add to your brilliance here, Glenn. And I'm not sure what else I can add to the commentary on this post. I just wanted to say that I had such a bright sensation of hope when I heard the news of the Court's ruling.
5-4 terrifies me. And the ability of electioneers to tilt the numbers to the side of McSame gives me shivers in the night.
But today, for at least an hour or two, I'm really hopeful. The constitution lives.
Thanks for breaking down the decision for us--I knew you would have the best post on this.
-
@Che Pasa
[Read the article: Supreme Court restores habeas corpus, strikes down key part of Military Commissions Act]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]On the principle that there are no stupid questions, I ask you: what are the provisions for Supreme Court justice removal?
Though there are many instances of Scalia getting my goat, I found his "quack quack" response to those asking him to recuse himself on the Cheney energy hearings, well, inexcusable.
A link would be sufficient if others find this too off-topic, or if you lack the time/inclination for further discussion. Thanks!
Oh, link to Scalia's disrespect in my sig.
-
"Unfit" for the bench
[Read the article: Supreme Court restores habeas corpus, strikes down key part of Military Commissions Act]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Fascinating, Che Pasa. Thanks for the info re: impeachment.
I'm going to think/research about why a strict constructionist/ Federalist Society hack is not an activist judge, when anyone with a so-called liberal bent or an ACLU association "legislates from the bench." I think disrespect for the checks and balances promoted by the separation of powers--a contempt evinced in many of Scalia's rulings--should make him unfit for the bench, but I'm no legal scholar.