Letters to the Editor
bdop4
Published Letters: 225 Editor's Choice: 10
-
@ Bill_H
[Read the article: David Brooks' fictitious defense of his industry's behavior]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"I agree that the media needs to be held accountable on this stuff but the candidates themselves are somewhat to blame as well. If Obama doesn't know how to bowl why show up at a bowling alley? My thought is he did it because he wanted to be seen as a blue collar everyday kind of person. He screwed up and bowled a 37 and got called on it. Should have it been such a big deal? Absolutely not, but it was his idea to go bowling not the press. The candidates are culpable in this insanity as well."
So I guess the hallmark of a great president is COWARDICE, because you aren't going to meet a lot of voters if you avoid place that offer activities that you aren't good at.
Jeez, maybe Obama thought he'de give it shot to show he can have some fun? But no, apparently a person can't do anything in public unless they're "good" at it (WTF that is).
If you can't see this is moronic, then you are obviously a moron. It's because the press treated it as some big controversy that people tend to see it that way. You seem to think that is fair.
Fortunately, the incredibly blatant display by ABC may wake some people up to this BS.
-
@ Bill_H
[Read the article: David Brooks' fictitious defense of his industry's behavior]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Who said anything about being fair? The guy is running for the POTUS. He went to that bowling alley for one reason and one reason only: to show people he was an everyday kind of guy and he blew it. My point is that the candidates are culpable in all this as well. If he had decided to play horse and was swishing jump shots beyond the arc he would have been a hero. He decided to go bowling instead. Bad move."
Bad move according to the Drudge/MSM rationale, which you've clearly bought into lock, stock and barrel. His bowling score should have been no move at all, or maybe deserved a slight chuckle, AND THEN MOVED ON TO REAL ISSUES. Do you really think it's OK for the cable and network media to spend a week discussing something like this as though it has some implication as to how he might run this country?
Listen, I know there are a lot of dumb!@#$s who vote in this country (the last eight years have proven that), but do we have to accept that the media promoting this type of rationale deserves anything but complete scorn and ridicule?
P.S. Not all "everyday kind of guys" are good or decent bowlers. Another BS caricature of Americans.
-
Sometimes You Have to Answer Tough Questions, but . . .
[Read the article: Debating the debate, complaining about complaining]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Sometimes you have to call bullshit to bullshit questions (and that's the best answer of all).
I've been a Clinton fan since '91 (during Bill's initial debates), and their complete acceptance of this debate really disappoints me. Her agreeing that these are questions worth answering tells me she knows she can't beat Obama on policy matters. Pathetic.
-
Hillary's Complaint
[Read the article: Debating the debate, complaining about complaining]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Wasn't substantive, it was procedural. Not the same thing.
-
@ MICKI
[Read the article: Debating the debate, complaining about complaining]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"I, for one, really don't feel offended by their line of inquiry. How politicians respond to seemingly superficial questions can reveal a lot about their character, judgment, ability to think on their feet, demeanor, temperment, composure, etc.
There's sure a lot of airtime and ink being devoted to discussing stupid questions. Why are writers here at salon.com flogging this BS?
How 'bout WRITING about the issues?"
Bullshit. These candidate have answered questions regarding these "controversies" for days, if not weeks. The problem is that these "seemingly superficial" questions are dominating all MSM political discourse to the exclusion of substantive issues.
As for your second assertion, Salon has more substantive analysis and content than most (if not all) MSM sources. If you don't think so, then leave.
-
An Investigation
[Read the article: It goes well beyond the Keating Five]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]should be ordered to examine the process behind the huge discrepancy in land values between the two transactions. If McCain had any influence on the government's valuation of the land in the sale to Diamond, he is in deep shit.
If not, it's still an example of massive government fraud/waste to which McCain's name is attached.
I'm going to email my rep., Henry Waxman, on this one.
-
My Letter to Rep. Waxman
[Read the article: It goes well beyond the Keating Five]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Dear Rep. Waxman,
I am a constituent and long-time admirer of what you've done for this country. I would like to direct your attention to an article appearing in the NY Times regarding possible influence peddling in the sale of goverment land near Ft. Ord to an AZ businessman named Donald Diamond.
Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/22/us/politics/22diamond.html?_r=2&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print
Mr. Diamond has extensive ties to John McCain, who may or may not have used his influence to facilitate the land sale. Regardless, the sales price to Mr. Diamond of $250,000 (which was sold two years later for $20,000,000) is unconscionable.
Irrespective of Mr. McCain's possible influence, the process used by the government in this transaction needs to be identified and ELIMINATED.
I hope that you can act on this matter (or forward it to someone who can)."
-
If I were a voter in one of the upcoming states
[Read the article: Will Obama shift his focus to McCain?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I would be more interested in who can mount the most effective campaign against McCain. I think if both candidates focused purely on McCain, the party and primary voters would benefit equally.
We know all the other "points of distinction" between the candidates ad nauseum. Lets see who can best shred the lame talking points from the McCain campaign.