Letters to the Editor
adam.mcgahan
Published Letters: 37
-
O'Hanlon at it right now
[Read the article: Enforcing the community's foreign policy orthodoxy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Sorry - not totally appropriate to the thread, but O'Hanlon and Cordesman are on the WBUR program "On Point" right now (10-11 AM).
www.wbur.org and click "Listen".
-
The Pettiness of Michael O'Hanlon
[Read the article: The truth behind the Pollack-O'Hanlon trip to Iraq]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Michael O'Hanlon was on WBUR's "On Point" this morning and was confronted by a reader of Glenn's column. He proceeded to say that he (paraphrase) "didn't have high regard for the kind of journalism Glenn does" and that Glenn has "higher readership than he deserves".
The show just aired, so I don't think a netcast is available yet, but I will post a link when it is.
In all, it was a very disappointing listen, with those in the "we really did break it, so we have a moral responsibility to own it" camp representing around half (possibly more) the callers.
-
The Pettiness of Michael O'Hanlon with link
[Read the article: The truth behind the Pollack-O'Hanlon trip to Iraq]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Link to this morning's first hour of "On Point" featuring Michael O'Hanlon and Anthony Cordesman:
http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2007/08/20070814_a_main.asp
It's pretty tough listening to O'Hanlon speak as if his interview with Glenn never occurred.
-
Enjoy your vacation, Glenn...
[Read the article: Posting news]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You deserve it.
-
Liberal Media?
[Read the article: How secure are you? ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Some of Paglia's commentary is astute, but anyone who still thinks the media is liberal is hopelessly out of touch. The traditional media is best characterized incompetent referees, and inasmuch as conservatives are better at cowing the refs, they've had far more calls go their way over the last 15 years than liberals have.
Take a second look, Camille. There's hope for you.
-
I Need Further Refinement...
[Read the article: David Brooks and the deceitful tactics of the Beltway pundit]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think we should examine a little deeper why Greenwald today:
Brooks' column today -- praising Democrats for ignoring radical anti-war bloggers and instead embracing "Centrism" -- is a perfect showcase for both of these dishonest tactics. His column is devoted to the argument that the Democratic Party hates its blogger and anti-war activist base, is committed to hawkish military policies, and that it is doing the Right Thing in this regard because Most Americans want a hawkish military policy. That is "centrism."
Is not contradicting Greenwald Sunday:
By very stark contrast, most (though certainly not all) Democrats in Congress -- particularly the most influential and longest-serving ones in the Senate like Feinstein -- have contempt for their base and share virtually none of their values.
As Digby said yesterday of Senate Democrats: "it surely seems true that they loathe the Democratic base as much as the Republicans do." Hence, Dianne Feinstein funds Bush's war with no limits while condemning MoveOn. She votes to vest vast new surveillance powers in the President. She defends and vouches for and places blind faith in the whole litany of Bush intelligence officials who have spent the last six years radicalizing this country and breaking the law.
-
Thanks for refining your reply...
[Read the article: David Brooks and the deceitful tactics of the Beltway pundit]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Glenn,
First of all, I'm a fan, not a sock puppet or a concern troll. My post is terse, but it doesn't make an accusation. It says exactly what it's intended to say: I need refinement. I think you're getting a little cavalier with your writing, that's all.
You offer up three pieces to Brooks argument:
His column is devoted to the argument that...
- the Democratic Party hates its blogger and anti-war activist base
- is committed to hawkish military policies
- and that it is doing the Right Thing in this regard because Most Americans want a hawkish military policy
Then you say:
Of course, Brooks' entire column is factually false
But you yourself appear to agree with at least one of his premises:
Democrats in Congress -- particularly the most influential and longest-serving ones in the Senate like Feinstein -- have contempt for their base and share virtually none of their values.
So, his entire column isn't factually false. His argument or his conclusions may be false, but not every premise is false, and the way that you presented his argument directed me to examine the individual premises as well as the overarching thesis.
The refinement I need is probably that "Democratic Party" to you means "rank and file Democrats" or "the Democratic base", but to me, it means "the Democratic party establishment" of which Feinstein is a part.
Sure, it's a nitpick, but it threw me off as I read your piece today, and forced me to go back and read Sunday's column to disambiguate what you were trying to say.
-
Re: Fans of Bill Maher
[Read the article: David Brooks and the deceitful tactics of the Beltway pundit]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Did I just become a GOP apparatchik or am I misreading Anonymous's post. Thoughts?
Anyway, let's be clear: I don't conflate that group of people who could be described as "Democratic voters" or as "people who are registered as Democrats" with that group of people who call themselves "Democrats" and who have made politics their profession.
The problem I had with Glenn's article was minor, and it was based on the fact that I, and I don't think I'm alone on this, associate the phrase "Democratic Party" with the latter group of people and absolutely not with the first.
"The party" has the conventions, and the figureheads there are of the latter group. "The party" has representatives and pundits on TV, and they clearly and demonstrably represent the latter group and not the former.
I'm all for clearly and distinctly separating these two groups. However, I think the common use of the phrase "Democratic Party" is shorthand for the political professionals who call themselves "Democrats" and not for the mass of people who are simply registered as Democrats and/or typically vote for Democrats.
Like I said: refinement.
-
Good Article
[Read the article: Douglas Schoen and Hillary's slimy pollsters]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Shining light where it needs to be shone.
-
William Kristol...
[Read the article: Douglas Schoen and Hillary's slimy pollsters]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...is so awesomely delusional. Well, no, he's a propagandist, and he's doing what propagandists do. My question is "Why should we care what he says?"
-
RE: Jim Montague
[Read the article: Douglas Schoen and Hillary's slimy pollsters]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Food for thought there. I live in Massachusetts, and we regularly vote in a Republican Governor, ostensibly to balance out the overwhelmingly Democratic state legislature.
I can't speak to the effectiveness of the arrangement, but the idea certainly has merit. Of course, none of that is to say that it wouldn't be best to have both an overwhelming majority in congress and a Democrat in the White House...