Letters to the Editor
calgodot
Published Letters: 257 Editor's Choice: 6
-
Lieberman's Reasons
[Read the article: Will Lieberman lose if Democrats win?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]1. As chairman he can block, impeded, misdirect, or otherwise stymie 'investigations' into abuse of the Patriot Act, abuse of FISA and related laws, abuse of civil liberties by DHS officers, etc. In short, he can help protect his Republicans friends.
2. With the amount of untraceable, unaccountable spending going on in DHS, there is so much bid-padding and invoice-inflation that the chairman can likely build substantial personal wealth from the 'enticements' given by corporations seeking to do business with DHS.
3. The chairman also likely has a fat 'discretionary' fund, so Lieberman can spend the next 4 years campaigning for the next Republican President, using taxpayer dollars.
Nothing is going to stop Lieberman from bolting to the Republican Party. Had it not been for the 50/50 split, he'd already be McCain's running mate.
-
Democrats Doing It Again
[Read the article: The rubes and the elites]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]And right on time. It was at about this point in the campaign cycle that the Democratic Party decided to reject Howard Dean, the leading candidate in the polls and the only one capable of exciting the party "base," on the basis of one word, shouted in glee over his mounting victories: YEEE-HAAA!
These power-elites of the party rejected Dean as "unelectable" and, in their 'wisdom' and 'experience' insisted that the party take a 'pragmatic' approach, then selected the 'electable' candidate, John Kerry (who now seems to have disappeared from the face of the Earth).
Now these same party-power people are pushing Democrats to reject the wild-card candidate who is exciting the base, drawing voters out in record number, and forcing a substantial debate of certain issues. These power-hungry partisans, led or at least inspired by Hillary Clinton, insist that the more popular candidate is "unelectable." They insist that he must be rejected because of this one word: "bitter."
Is the Democratic Party determined to shoot itself in the foot again this year? Looks like it.
The Rovian Republicans are laughing themselves to near-death over this one. Should Obama win the nomination, McCain won't have to politic dirty against him: Hillary has already laid the ground work. GOP surrogates can repeat every talking point her campaign has issued. If pressed to recant or demur, they (and McCain) can reply, "It's nothing that isn't already out there. It's nothing the Democrats didn't already say about him in the primaries."
Democrats seemed determined to lose. From winning a Congressional majority and doing nothing with it, through taking impeachment off the table, through allowing illegality to pass without investigation, to enabling the decimation of civil liberties and the dismantling of the law, Democrats seem doomed to a form of passive-aggression which keeps them from not only grabbing the gold ring but from reaching for it in the first place. A party of losers, from this voter's perspective.
-
Another Sign of the Coming Conscription?
[Read the article: McCain sides with Bush, opposes new GI Bill]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Think about it: if the next Congress and President institute any form of conscription to fill the ranks for the ongoing Iraq War (or the eventual Iran war), with the economy being strained, federal dollars on the wane, how could the guv'mint afford to pay for the college education of all those poor people who got swept up in the draft? Only if they re'up'd would it become a worthy investment.
The military gets back its costs of training in 2-3 years of service, depending on specialty/duty, which is why service contracts are set as they are (check with the bean counters at the Pentagon - you'll see). Benefits costs are calculated into this number - DoD amortization tables must be seen to be believed. With the only way you can get home being either a body bag or a wheelchair (and with 21st century med-tech making the latter more likely), the cost of post-enlistment benefits paid out to Iraqi vets is growing (and will soon become astronomical). Somebody countin' beans at the five-sided cement altar has reckoned that providing secondary education (tuition costs, living expense) for wounded (medical benefits), psychologically troubled (psych benefits), veterans (pay bonus) of the Iraq War (pay bonus) is just not worth it. Much better to force re-enlistment, send them back to the combat zone, and squeeze more value out of them. This increases the odds of injury or death, thus increasing the likelihood of a positive return on the DoD's investment.
Ah, corporatization! Ah, capitalism!
-
Journalism in the War Room?
[Read the article: McCain reverses course on "rogue-state rollback"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Political analysis? Journalism? In Salon's War Room? I was about to give up under the terrible reign of King Koppeleman the Hack. Thank you, Steve Benen, for giving me back something worthwhile to read with my daily dose of Glenn Greenwald.
Now - How many people believe John McCain can substantially remember anything from eight years ago, much less an obvious, somewhat typical, seat-of-the-pants answer the "maverick" gave?
Can we see a show of hands?
-
Four More Beers! Four More Beers!
[Read the article: Progressive group begins effort to "define" McCain]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I mean, "Four more years."
Nice ad. Good delivery. Solid punch.
Why are "amateurs" better ad-makers these days than the "pros?"
Suddenly I feel like watching Wag the Dog...
-
These aren't "real" housewives.
[Read the article: Finale wrap-up: "The Real Housewives of New York City"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]A real housewife cooks, cleans, takes care of the kids, runs errands, provides moral/emotional support for the breadwinner, and handles many of the fiduciary/budgeting concerns of the household. She may even juggle a full- or part-time job/career along with all her domestic duties.
Anyone who hands the majority of that work off to another person (or in the case of women of this level of wealth, a staff of people) does not deserve to be honored by the term "housewife."
These women are well-paid prostitutes who married their best john.
-
Fire Joan Walsh.
[Read the article: Don't blame San Francisco for Obama's "Bittergate"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Let her go and do her dirty work for the Clinton campaign somewhere else.
Please.