Letters to the Editor
calgodot
Published Letters: 257 Editor's Choice: 6
-
No surprise: Shapiro's horse is Hillary
[Read the article: Obama enters the bubble]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What a nice bit of character assassination. Shapiro suggests Obama's campaign has requested the additional protection, while eliding Hillary's own overuse of the Secret Service.
It's a subtle piece of work Shapiro offers. He suggests Obama clearly demanded this "unprecendented" protection because the Secret Service says it wasn't based on a threat. At the same time Shapiro concedes it's "no surprise" Obama would want such protection.
Hillary on the other hand is just a poor victim of circumstance. She doesn't want to be surrounded by guards, but has to accept it "because of her status as a former first lady." Don't blame her for her immobility and distance, says Shapiro (though she could like the Carters request a smaller contingent, a detail Shapiro fails to note).
Having planted the suggestion that Obama wants to "seem like a political celebrity," Shapiro contorts himself to criticize the lack of protection around Edwards. He fails to note that the Edwards campaign has pointedly rejected a large protection detail. Then he moves on to criticize the Edwards campaign, with an undecipherable analysis of a typo in Edwards' schedule.
Can anyone discern anything remotely like a point to Shapiro's post? Does anybody wonder which candidate has Shapiro's support?
-
RealName is Amusing
[Read the article: God save the queen!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Aren't people who complain about the quality and content of Salon, yet continue reading it and posting letters, funny?
(That's "funny" as in "strange" not "funny" as in "ha ha.")
-
Nazi America
[Read the article: When Democrats collapse]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Contemporary America resembles Nazi Germany more and more every day. Each move the Democrats make to acquiesce to the far right makes them more like Weimar Republicans. Money talks, and you-know-what walks. Congressional Democrats are corrupt cowards, and for the last six years the Democratic voters who put them in office (that would be you, Salon readers, editors and writers) have castigated those of us who pointed out the similarities between the parties and their candidates in the 2000 election. Unable to face your own guilt in causing this war and contributing to this faltering economy, you'd rather harass Nader voters, who warned you then that there was little or no difference between the warmongers and those who enable their sickness.
Face it, Democrats: you've been had. Your golden boy Al Gore is happy to write a book and do a Powerpoint presentation (admonishing us to recycle but going easy on polluting corporations), but stands in the background while the Bush war machine rolls happily on. Your best and brightest either tacitly support the actions of Bush and his crew or lack the fortitude to stand against the crimes of this administration. Most of you would vote for Obama or Clinton just to have the first black or woman in the White House - never mind their complete acquiescence to the system that keeps Bush in power. They ought to just call it the Kowtow Party and swithc mascots from a stubborn donkey to a roly-poly.
In 2000, your candidate actually won by over a half-million votes, and then ran away with his tail between his legs, excusing his cowardice by saying an illegal Presidency was in the best interests of the nation. Instead of examining the true reasons Gore lost, you decided to blame Ralph Nader and the few people who bothered to vote for him. In 2004, your candidate did everything he could to make sure Bush was re-elected. Instead of examining how Skull-n-Bones Kerry caved to his frat brother and fellow privileged scion Bush, you decided to blame Christians (and Nader voters again). Come 2008, you'll dance to the polls and vote for whatever sad parody of a Presidential candidate your corrupt party elevates to the position. Whichever candidate wins, the war in Iraq/Iran will go on. There's money in bloodshed, and Democrats serve the same masters as their friends across the aisle. There will be no change. You can count on it. If the next President is a Democrat, you'll all make excuses, sling blame willy-nilly, or stick your heads back into the sand.
There's little hope for this country. Perhaps none at all. No opposition party to speak of, and a voting public too stupid, ignorant, illiterate, and addicted to the status quo to support a third party or truly radical candidate. Pack your bags if you've still got a conscience, or figure out how to live under the jackboot without being crushed.
-
The Myth That Won't Die
[Read the article: Mike Bloomberg could buy the White House]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The problem with the Perot parallel is that it predates the deadlocked 2000 election and the lasting consequences (Bush's presidency) of the protest votes for Ralph Nader.
The biggest losers of the 2000 election are the whiny Democrats who keep this myth alive. Those poor deluded souls simply fail to recognize that their candidate lacked luster and leadership, and ran a campaign which by hos own admission failed to address relevant issues - not to mention failed to fight for the voters of Florida. These blithering Democrats also forget that it was ballot chicanery and a biased Supreme Court which actually handed the election to Bush, and not a handful of "protest votes" for Nader - votes which have been proven to be statistically irrelevant in hat election. But what's science to a blindly committed party zealot, eh?
And while Bush's approval ratings can charitably be described as subterranean, Congress, even after the Democratic takeover, is almost as scorned by the voters.
Perhaps that ought to read, "especially after the Democratic takeover." Congressional Democrats have demonstrated the same lack of political prowess and moral courage exemplified by the Democratic Presidential candidates in both 2000 and 2004. Is it any wonder that people desirous of action and change have to lodge "protest votes?"
But I suppose the cowardice and inaction of Democrats in Congress is the fault of Nader voters as well.