Letters to the Editor
-
Captainlarab
"It's because Jim Webb is not really all that different. You have a choice between a racist and a homophobic mysogynist, basically."
And basically, Captainlarab, you're one of those snivelling idealogues on the outer fringe of reality who will always piss on any candidate who hasn't passed your politically correct smell test.
A homophobic mysogynist? Really?
With those credentials, you'd think Webb would beating Allen at his own game. But you failed to let us in on why you think Webb is a homophobic mysogynist. Was it his time as Secretary of the Navy maybe?
So you actually claim to know "several" Democratic voters [sic].
Hey, me too. I know a few.
We're Vietnam Veterans. We happen to think Jim Webb will win without much of a fight over George "Macaca" Allen. Want to know why? Because he's a war vet who has been there. He led a Marine rifle platoon and became company commander in I-Corp where he was awarded two Purple Hearts, two Bronze Stars, a Silver Star, and the Navy Cross.
Now I know that probably don't mean much to you, captain, but it does to me and others. We are at war right now whether we like it or not. I'd prefer to have a leader who won't spend our blood and treasure recklessly like our current Texas Air National Guard dropout.
Webb's list of accomplishments during his outstanding career in service to our country include fighting for Veterans' rights and against Republican attempts to cut spending on VA hospitals.
He knows the cost of war first hand. He's a military man and a Democrat. But that is what probably really kills it for you. He's tainted. So you better go find some nobody from the far left fringe who couldn't get elected dog catcher (Ralph Nader) and go support HIM, instead of Webb.
And if I can borrow your phrase: It's that kind of thinking that got George W. Bush the presidency, twice.
-
Re: Obviously
<<Michael Scherer did not write the article out of an interest for forwarding some golden ideal of ice cold objective truth; but because he was offended by Allen's remarks and wanted to tear him a new one. He's motivated by vengence, another brand of the thirst for power and sadistic pleasure practiced by his opponent. I can't see how you could not be, I'm just saying that it's useless trying to take the moral high ground while writing and celebrating a piece like this.>>
1. Yeah, invoke ice-cold objective truth, as though anyone in the US know what it is, listening to O'Reilly, Coulter and Fox News. Golden, fer sure. ANY opposing view to those hacks is light-years closer to truth.
Ad hominem and straw man.
At no point did I suggest that O'Reilly, Coulter, or Fox News better represented the truth. There is nothing in my statement (other than that I'm critical of Sherer) that suggested that I believed they better represented the Truth. You are associating me with these people as to better dismiss my position.
2. You know for a fact that Scherer wanted to "tear him a new one?" Wow, never would have gotten that out of the article. Seemed pretty heavy on background rather than bile.
Sounds like a false dilemna. I offer that is possible to be heavy on background and still be full with bile. His motivations in researching, writing, and publishing the article seem to be to revel in Allen's failure and gloat in easy moral superiority over him. It focuses on how the Republicans are unlikely to pick him up for a 2008 run at the White House, and his football playing, Confederate flag wearing redneck past.
3. Hmmm. Vengeance, Thirst for Power, Sadistic Pleasure. Yep, all solid Republican virtues.
Another false dilemna.
Those "virtues" are not exclusive to the Republican Party. Reveling in Allen's failure and gloating in moral superiority over him are functions of a pursuit for power; or a reclaiming of power that was apparently appropriated in Allen's attack.
I'm hoping that you are talking about Allen here, but somehow you seem to be implicating Webb, and somehow Scherer of those same motivations. You could be clearer. Or maybe you ARE a Repug, incoherently accusing everyone of your own flaws. Talk about projection!
4. Not so obviously, I don't know wtf you are saying. Get off your moral high horse and make a decent argument.
At no point did I directly implicate Webb. As far as I'm concerned he has little to do with this. I was implicating Scherer. I have no idea how you could have been confused about this. Again the first two sentences of my three sentence post:
Michael Scherer did not write the article out of an interest for forwarding some golden ideal of ice cold objective truth; but because he was offended by Allen's remarks and wanted to tear him a new one. He's motivated by vengence, another brand of the thirst for power and sadistic pleasure practiced by his opponent.
The pronoun "he" in "he's motivated by vengence" is clearly in reference to Michael Scherer.
-
Amen, c'estlavie - from Nova
Just remember the last time Virginia fucked up bad, they lost a big chunk of territory that became a new state. It can happen again if you keep pushing this shit.
Tell old Pharaoh let my people go.
-
Welcome to America
Reading this article, I think that the more offensive statement was "Welcome to America" rather than using the word "macaca," which George Allen's sister didn't recognize, and later stated that her mother didn't.
Had Sidarth been caucasian, saying "Welcome to America" would have meant something else--it would have meant "we're out here in the real America" the "real world of Virginia," as Allen said. However, George Allen saying that in a group of caucausians to the one person of color means something totally different. I think this is what needs to be highlighted, not a word (and a context for the word) that is difficult to explain.
Other than that, I think what struck me about George Allen in this article and the previous article ("War Hero vs. faux cowboy" from July) is how much he reminds me of GWB. Bush was considered a harmless buffoon until he won the presidency (and even after that until 9/11). George Allen the jock, George Allen, the man who's a danger to his candidacy the moment he steps off script. And despite what we think about what should be intelligent and reasonable attributes for presidential candidates, that we should, after all that we've been through since 2000, want something more in a president than "he's a guy I'd like to have a beer with," I have no doubt that people would vote for Allen just because he can come off like a "regular guy". As a friend said to me recently, "I don't believe the American people can think their way out of a paper bag when it comes to politics."