Letters to the Editor
Green Job
Published Letters: 220 Editor's Choice: 3
-
Warning! - More beating the SCOTUS topic to death - skip if you don't care
[Read the article: Hillary enters death-with-dignity phase]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm not sure what your link proves. Yes, we know the economy and Iraq are the top two issues in the current election - not one person here has argued otherwise. Your polls don't list potential SCOTUS nominations as a separate issue, nor do they break down voting statistics by party affiliation or lack thereof.
The fact that the polls don't list SCOTUS as a separate issue should tell you something (much like the famous dog that didn't bark in the night). Still don't believe me? Go to Obama's website and look in the Issues section; SCOTUS doesn't even merit its own separate entry under 'Other Issues'.
Why would these polls need to break down the results by party affiliation, or lack thereof? Given the consistency of the results among all the polls listed there, there's no reason to believe they're a statistically inaccurate sample.
The past 10 elections took place in different times, with different administrations in office, and different issues at the forefront; thus they are of limited value in assessing what voters of any affiliation think important in 2008.
It's true that except for 2004, the Iraq war hasn't been at the forefront of issues, but the economy and national security (or both) have always been the top issues in Presidential elections.
It's called logic...why not use it to prove your point? -- baby_boomerang
Start with an incorrect premise and logic leads you nowhere; hence the phrase Garbage In, Garbage Out.
My point...was that the SCOTUS argument is one here, among political junkies and wonks. Not about making a broad based appeal to the electorate. And the point with SCOTUS is the long term damage those appointments can make. Witness Bush's two choices.
The argument keeps coming up because there are some republican' troll in our midst who keep saying that if Obama wins the nomination they will vote for John McCain. People usually try to appeal to their better nature- why would you do that to the country? - which doesn’t work because they have no better nature. Then we try to reason - look John McCain will have the opportunity to appoint Supreme Court justices! - you don't want that for the future, do you? But they’re not thinking about the common good or future importance of the high court. Because they are republican trolls! -- CeliaInSF
Thanks for your thoughtful response. I guess all I'm trying to say is that outside of the confines of these chatrooms, SCOTUS isn't as important an issue as some purport it to be, and that if Obama tries to make it issue (rather than using it to re-inforce the base), he should be prepared to explain what difference it makes given a Democratic majority in the Senate.
-
Wouldn't global warning have saved the Titanic's passengers
[Read the article: McCain: "Facts of global warming demand our urgent attention"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]by melting the iceberg?
On a slightly more serious note, I'll vote for anyone who promises to outlaw the phrase, "rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic".
And Obama's response is amusing given his Clean Kentucky Coal brochures.
-
Bush deserves all the credit
[Read the article: Why Ronald Reagan didn't completely suck]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]for making Reagan look good. Bush makes anyone look good. At least Reagan could speak coherently even if the points he made were ridiculous.
As for the significance of Reagan, I always think it's overrated compared to that Truman, LBJ or Nixon. For good or ill, his policies were largely continuations of, or reactions to, their policies. Even tax-cutting and the born again stuff was borrowed from Kennedy and Carter respectively.
-
Re - You got what you deserve
[Read the article: Why Ronald Reagan didn't completely suck]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Reagan came after Carter, the worst bar none, President of the US since maybe Harding or Grant...-- Electro Robot
Carter was the worst President since Ford. He had the same crappy economy Carter did and arguably did less about it. For all of Ford's talk about Whip Inflation Now, it was Carter who appointed Volcker as Chairman of the Fed and it was Volcker's brutal monetary policy that, for better or worse, helped reduce inflation and lead to lower interest rates in the long-time, albeit at the price of castratingly high interest rates in the short-term.
Moreover, you may have heard of this guy named Hoover. President Hoover sucked even more than Vaccuum Cleaner Hoover.
-
Re - We Owe Reagan A Debt We Can Never Repay
[Read the article: Why Ronald Reagan didn't completely suck]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Reagan's policies gave us the deregulation and corporatism and anti-labor policies responsible for today's inflated gas prices, inflated drug prices, inflated health care costs, the credit crisis, the home mortgage crisis, and the debt and deficit which override all of those.
Deregulation started under Carter.
Mainly I'm saying this not to promote or condemn Carter, but just to re-iterate that I am baffled that some people think that Reagan was more significant than Truman, LBJ or Nixon.
-
madamfauntleroy , baby_boomerang & the Supreme Court
[Read the article: Hillary enters death-with-dignity phase]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]madamfauntleroy,
As baby_boomerang kindly pointed out, SCOTUS stands for Supreme Court of the United States. I'm sorry about the acronym. I try to write clearly, but often get lazy and so resort to shortcuts.
baby_boomerang,
I agree that we're talking at cross purposes, or maybe just approaching things differently (getting back to logic, perhaps inductive vs. deductive). About 122 million people voted in 2004. Right now, I wouldn't be surprised if the turnout this fall is higher. So if even a small percentage of voters decide for whom to vote primarily on the issue of Supreme Court nominations, that will be millions of people.
-
Re - Those who are innocent have nothing to fear
[Read the article: Has our reverence for DNA gone too far?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Except their Insurance Companies.
So until we have National Health Insurance where everyone is covered regardless of medical condition, I'm against any proposal that requires forking over any medical information to anyone absent a warrant or a criminal conviction.
And no, I don't trust that the government will keep the Insurance Companies from getting this information.
-
Given that West Virgina borders Ohio, Pennsylvania & Virginia
[Read the article: Can Barack Obama win West Virginia?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Does it provide any sort clue as to how those those states will vote, or at least, the parts of those states that border West Virginia?