Letters to the Editor
Publican
Published Letters: 94 Editor's Choice: 1
-
Don't let go, BUT
[Read the article: Joe Klein digs Time's hole deeper still]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]don't fall into the well laid traps of: 1)angry blogger; 2) personal attack; 3)obfuscation by legal complexity; or 4) the margianlized leftist ACLU pointy head civil libertarian.
I realize you're very familiar with all these, but, just don't get so in the weeds on the legal analysis that you hang yourself on the details or fall into traps.
Stay on the same message you started this on - major illustration of the corrupt beltway media system that has brought us to numerous crises.
Inability to admit error totally unacceptable.
Expand from there.
-
Holt view on the "blogs" role in Klein affair
[Read the article: Time magazine refused to publish responses to Klein's false smears]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Glen - I think you may be misreading the strength of the Holt position.
FYI, I attended a Town meeting by Holt on Saturday morning. I spoke with him beforehand privately to say that I was there to express my opposition to the war, but thanked him for his leadership on FISA and intervention in the Klein matter.
He chuckled - and said "Oh, you must be reading the blogs". At first I thought this was a positive sign. Holt then said he'd talk about the issue during the meeting. I suggested he place the episode in a larger context to explain how the R's and media mislead the public and smear Democrats (and give other examples like buildup to war). Our brief conversation was interupted by the start of the meeting before Holt could reply.
Well, towards the end of his public presentation, Holt mentioned the Klein matter. He gave a very brief over-view of the FISA issue - he claimed "our laws were changed" (but didn't explain Bush illegality or explain why FISA was enacted: to prevent abuses). He emphasized the government's need to protect us from domestic terrorist, while "balancing" our privacy (which were mentioned almost as an afterthought, and not grounded in Consitutional law or principle). He then went out of his way to say that the episode had gotten quite a bit of attention on the blogs, but Holt said the blogs were missing the real issue and distorting things by focusing on whether Klein was biased or a Republican operative, etc instead of focusing on the real issue, which Holt basically said was how to give our government the tools to protect us from terrorists!
I got the feeling that Holt was not willing to stand with bloggers or openly advocate privacy rights, and instead perceived bloggers, frankly, as lacking credibility and a pain in the ass that had to be dealt with. But these were just my subjective feelings based on what Holt said adn didn't say, and how he said it. His district does tend to lean republican, and the audience overall was fairly conservative based on the questions they asked.
Here is a link to the local media coverage - full page on Sunday:
Holt holds town meeting in Delaware Township
http://www.c-n.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071202/NEWS02/712020505/1004
-
Navigation of church and state
[Read the article: Romney: "Freedom requires religion" ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]One of the better recent arguments on these issues was by Mario Cuomo - in one of his books "Reason to Believe" maybe? - I actually forget the specifics of the argument, but I do recall being impressed by their intellectual groundings.
House that for idiot time, Friay pm?
Anyone care to weigh in and lay out Cuomo's argumets? Or do I have to go back and re-read the book? Give an old man a break!
-
Hierarchy of oaths?
[Read the article: Democratic complicity in Bush's torture regimen]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Glen - I thought for sure you'd address this claim in WaPo article, because it is the source of cover for Democrats:
"When you serve on intelligence committee you sign a second oath -- one of secrecy," she said. "I was briefed, but the information was closely held to just the Gang of Four. I was not free to disclose anything."
Surely, this oath can not supercede the oath to uphold the Constitution?
Surely such an oath can not be used as a shield to conceal criminal activity?
Suppose Congress were briefed by CIA on Iran Contra? Suppose COngress were briefed by CIA on Watergate? Suppose (fill in the balnmsk on history of CIA crimes)
-
Holt is no Hero
[Read the article: Democrats show Beltway "strength," avoid being depicted as weak]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I noted that Jim White put Rush Holt in the same category as Ross Feingold. Sorry, while Holt's position on FISA on the House floor was exemplary, he lacks the leadership skills and courage of Feingold.
At a recent Town meeting, I posed a question to him on the failure of the Dem leadership to take on Bush and end the War(Iraq). I specifically called him on it.
His response was virtually identical to what Glenn has mocked the Dems for: Bush, Limbaugh, Fox and the media will call us weak on terrorism and critize us for failure to support the troops.
I swear Holt really said almost exactly this - Glenn put words in his mouth! Some of his response got printed in the newspaper - see this excerpt with link to full story:
Holt holds town meeting in Delaware Township
"But Holt also was firm in his conviction that Congress would have a difficult time winning a funding standoff with Bush, who has said that a lack of defense funding would result in cutbacks at the country's domestic military bases.
"It's going to be an ugly showdown, and the public will not let that showdown continue when the president starts to say, and the press starts to repeat, that people are going to die because of it," Holt said.
http://www.c-n.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071202/NEWS02/712020505/1004
-
Reid's Office refused to comment
[Read the article: Harry Reid's FISA games]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I just spoke with Reid's Office - they refused to even provide information on FISA or what Reid was doing!
How's that for democracy!
-
Imagine the outcry if Second and Fith Amendments involved
[Read the article: The Lawless Surveillance State]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Could you imagine if the National Surveillance State were dligently focused on monitoring gun purchases and gun owners?
(And how do the NRA and wingers know it's not?)
What bout if the National Securty State started eroding protections and laws governing "property rights"?
Why the selective sacrifice of the Constitution?
Proves they're authoritarians and capitalists.