Letters to the Editor
Baldie McEagle
Published Letters: 1075 Editor's Choice: 3
-
So ...
[Read the article: Torture and the rule of law]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]is genocide a policy? was the Second World War fought over policy differences? Should we simply have waited for Hitler to be voted out and sent back to the minor leagues? Is the Cold War now to be considered a big misunderstanding over policy differences? This calls for a major rewriting of history.
Was Saddam not deposed over policy differences?
Certainly, if it's just a smack to the head here and a wiretap there, the best and healthiest response to government overreach is to vote the perpetrators out. I guess the question is, when does torture (or domestic spying, or genocide, or ethnic cleansing) become routine enough to be considered policy?
Obviously, when dabbling in lawbreaking becomes standard operating procedure as laid out in memos and manuals---and laws passed by Congress---it's no longer dabbling. It's a policy of lawbreaking.
And if lawbreaking is policy---at any level of government---then how can that policy escape being criminal? Is the law just another flavor of ice cream?
-
Obama's tax increases
[Read the article: Torture and the rule of law]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]President Obama's raised taxes already?
Shit! No one told me!
-
what's more, re Scooter
[Read the article: Torture and the rule of law]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]He doesn't even seem to be alarmed by the concept of every law being a bad law because it might be abused. Just amused.
In Scooterworld, abuse of laws is to be expected. That's why we need smaller government, so we can have fewer laws and less abuse.
Meanwhile, Iran is looking like it might be abusive. Let's nuke it!
-
speak of the devil
[Read the article: Torture and the rule of law]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Perhaps you people should consider that if the result of your rhetoric is sadness and depression, it's not a good thing.
Hee, hee!
(Psst Scooter---don't tell the Republicans!)
-
Uh-huh
[Read the article: The motivation for blocking investigations into Bush lawbreaking]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Yup. Of course the Democratic leadership is complicit. We've known that for years. Nothing else explains their behavior so well.
At least the Democratic nominee for president isn't as stained as Pelosi and Rockefeller.
That we know of.
So far.
-
@paul l
[Read the article: Let's give "Blue Dogs" the boot]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If Obama wins, Dems are going to need all the seats they can get, because Dems will suffer massive losses in 2010 and 2012, and in 2012 could lose control of the entire government again.
Why?
-
@zenhead
[Read the article: Let's give "Blue Dogs" the boot]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The most salient feature of the scathing, absolutely hateful blistering manner in which most Obamistas treated Senator Clinton was and remains, ideological purity. This is no different than any Marxist style purge of different thinkers I've read about save the worst example -- execution, exile, or imprisonment. I'd wondered what the reasons for the absolute hatred was for the Clintons. Not that there is only one reason, but nonetheless, the sheer tone of much of how Senator Clinton was treated appeared to be ideological.
How is this relevant?
-
@cresttwo
[Read the article: Let's give "Blue Dogs" the boot]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What exactly are you arguing against?
-
Obama continues
[Read the article: Let's give "Blue Dogs" the boot]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"I think this perspective misreads the American people. From traveling throughout Illinois and more recently around the country, I can tell you that Americans are suspicious of labels and suspicious of jargon. They don't think George Bush is mean-spirited or prejudiced, but have become aware that his administration is irresponsible and often incompetent. They don't think that corporations are inherently evil (a lot of them work in corporations), but they recognize that big business, unchecked, can fix the game to the detriment of working people and small entrepreneurs. They don't think America is an imperialist brute, but are angry that the case to invade Iraq was exaggerated, are worried that we have unnecessarily alienated existing and potential allies around the world, and are ashamed by events like those at Abu Ghraib which violate our ideals as a country."
All this is is a restatement of the preceding paragraph from the perspective of "regular" Americans who are not political "hobbyists," if you will, and who as a result are less than perfectly informed about political events, and don't always see issues through a party lens. Polls and surveys bear this out.
I think it's a very slight difference. There's always going to be an "esoteric" and an "exoteric" viewpoint in any large party, movement, or religion. Until the electorate are as informed as we are, we'd better get used to that gap.
-
That's all you've got?
[Read the article: No, let sleeping "Blue Dogs" lie]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There are three big problems with such a campaign: defining the targets amid wildly varying estimates of the necessary degrees of Democratic unity and progressivism; mustering the means to carry out primary challenges in territory not always hospitable to the net-roots point of view; and most of all, dealing with a post-Bush political environment in which many of the long-heard complaints about Democratic "timidity" may be far less relevant.
Omigod, there are PROBLEMS? Better just sit tight then.
Translation here:
(1) Choosing targets
(2) Carrying out campaigns against those targets
(3) Worrying about what may or may not happen next year
You had me until #3. Maybe the underpants gnomes can help.
-
@xufapemu
[Read the article: No, let sleeping "Blue Dogs" lie]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Purging the party isn't the answer. The leadership of the house Democrats is the issue. A strong leadership would use its powers to snap these blue dogs into some discipline.
How do you propose going about solving that problem?
-
@Halifax
[Read the article: Let's give "Blue Dogs" the boot]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...better communication and cooperation within the caucus...
Makes sense to me. Why don't you run for Congress on that platform?
I can't wait.
-
@texas
[Read the article: Let's give "Blue Dogs" the boot]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]John McCain wins the 2008 election not because the votes are for him but againist the arrogant Barack Obama.
I missed that. Can you provide a link?
-
@tailwind
[Read the article: Let's give "Blue Dogs" the boot]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Every time he makes a stand against Bush he is shot down by the Republican hacks in this state. So it's a no win situation. I am not wild about our 'Blue Dog' Senator. But, every time someone more liberal runs for the seat it's an orgy of nasty words from the Republican's of 'tax and spend Democrat', 'liberal' and any one of a thousand names just like it. And they never get elected.
As far as I can tell, this is exactly Glenn's argument. Contrary to gti200's comment, the Democratic Party does not consistently support liberal candidates. The result is what you see.
-
@red_whatever
[Read the article: Let's give "Blue Dogs" the boot]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If you don't get convicted for a crime you are still considered innocent.
really?
Someone give a shout to those still held without charges down Cuba way. They're free to go!