Letters to the Editor
Baldie McEagle
Published Letters: 992 Editor's Choice: 3
-
Updates: Flash Forward
[Read the article: Democrats in big, big trouble because of the Great Iraq War -- again]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In about a year, Howard Kurtz will be catching up to the REAL story:
"Increasing support among the electorate for Democratic candidates' platforms may create difficulties for the Democrats, should one of their candidate be elected."
-
@MinimalThinker
[Read the article: Democrats in big, big trouble because of the Great Iraq War -- again]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I thought you were alerting us to irony, not the lack of it.
-
Well, to be fair ...
[Read the article: What happened to the Senate's "60-vote requirement"?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The Democrats can't do much to fight back when the Republicans are sitting on them and giving them noogies and wedgies. They hurt!
If the Repubs would just let them up off the floor and give back their lunch money, the Dems will clear up this tyranny thing in no time. But if they don't play by the new rules, it's wedgie time again.
You don't want your representatives going without lunch, do you?
-
@RMP
[Read the article: What happened to the Senate's "60-vote requirement"?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The usual explanation I have seen for "torture as a litmus test" is not that the administration cares about torture per se. You are correct about that. But nor is it that they simply want a nominee to prove that he is their bitch before he kneels to them.
It's that they fear prosecution by a JD led by an AG who finds he has no choice but to prosecute them. So he must swear allegiance and secret compliance if he wants the post. That's why they met with him and made their position clear before the hearings. He apparently resisted them to an extent but in the end signaled his capitulation. And you have seen the results.
(No link available for that conversation, sorry, but it's widely known.)
-
W.E.S.: "The possible downside of opposing was too great."
[Read the article: What happened to the Senate's "60-vote requirement"?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]And that's the point, isn't it? If you have no spine or balls, plenty of things are too risky for you.
OK, so Hillary knows that I will vote for her if she is nominated, because I will then have no choice. But if I had a choice, I would vote to keep her out of Washington---because of her mealy-mouthed, weaselly voting record.
She could have voted against the resolution and looked like a hero now, in retrospect. But that would have taken guts---because she doesn't need to look like a hero, she just needs to avoid being cast as a war pussy. She doesn't need me---she just needs 51% of the vote.
Got it.
-
As Number 6 said
[Read the article: What happened to the Senate's "60-vote requirement"?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Everybody votes for a dictator."
-
@W.E.S.
[Read the article: What happened to the Senate's "60-vote requirement"?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't disagree. I just can't bring myself to care more about someone's political plans than about my own, or the state of my country. I spit on those who do.
-
I don't mean to flood
[Read the article: What happened to the Senate's "60-vote requirement"?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]but seriously, W.E.S., Clinton could have skipped the vote if she wanted.
No, she wanted to score her some War Party points. So she did.
She has them, and they cannot be erased.