Letters to the Editor
-
Paperfog
I agree with your comments.
I have asked the DNC to take me off their mailing list around 10 times as I recall, to no avail.
Also, the democrats in congress are more than ineffectual. They are a disgrace!
There is an article in the NY Times that was interesting today equating the Clinton campaign to Gore's in 2000. She runs a tight ship just like Gore did. And like her, he had this girl telling him how to gesture, dress. speak, walk, etc. He came across as stunted and stilted in the debates which I feel he lost, because of the girl.
Kerry listened to his consultants and didn't fight back against the swift-boaters and to me that cost him the election. I personally couldn't vote for a guy who wouldn't defend himself.
One aside, I have now watched HRC's speech supporting the war a few times and she comes off as more of a hawk than Cheney. If she becomes the nominee the citizenry is going to listen to that speech 10 times every day.
-
Should Have Been Your Course all Along
Instead of being "played" into supporting another morally bankrupt republican, you should have started your own Theocracy Party years ago. Now you can control content of your party on the way to control of the government. I'd wish you luck, but I know you don't need that, Gods on your side!!
-
Third Party Probity
I suspect there is a rumbling among leaders of the conservative Christian right about looking at the Third Party option. To them, Giuliani's appeal is only as a Tough on Terrorism candidate -- in fact, his candidacy is based on little more than that -- and his record and known attitudes on social policies is liberal enough for a Democrat to support. This view may not translate down to rank-and-file fundamentalist Christians, who have shown their willingness vote independent of what their "leaders" desire.
The historic problem for Third Party candidates, from Theodore Roosevelt to Strom Thurmond to George Wallace to Ross Perot to Ralph Nader, is a lack of an organizational base. None have strong enough of a structure in any large electoral-vote state to be able to draw a plurality against the established parties. The only way to overcome such an incredible disadvantage is for the two largest religious groups, the Southern Baptist or Catholic churches, to provide the structural base -- and neither would be foolhardy enough to get directly involved because they would lose their tax-exempt status.
-
Is it me?
or did the Vice President attend a secret meeting, with a secret organization who has a secret agenda? It strikes me as odd that this happens and nobody seems to have any questions about it.
Giuliani is not the pick of conservative Christians, they're trying to position Fred Thompson as a re-animated Ronald Reagan. Thompson keeps messing up because his not quite bright and they can't get the general public to swallow this fool after years of lunacy with GW. There'll be a split.
Maybe we'll be able to ask questions of both eventual nominees about what they had to do in order to get support from the different factions that make up the parties.
-
Praise the Lord!
Praise be - just one more reason for supporting Rudy! Perhaps with Rudy's nomination we can signal to the country that a new Republican party has been born, a party that is reasonable and moderate and living in the 21st century. So, to all those ridiculous bible-thumping ultra-right wingers I say "Good bye and good riddance - you are a drag on our party."
GO RUDY!
-
Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing
So, the Council for National Policy (CNP) rears their ugly, hateful, fascistic, theocratic little heads; no surprise, there. Their noisemaking about third candidates is so much hellfire and brimstone -- they depend on the GOP, like a remora latched onto a shark, hoping for a free meal and a free ride.
But, short of a coup, their neo-fascist agenda just can't be forced on the rest of the country without being piggybacked to a larger party. They're just trying to keep the GOP elite goose-stepping to their secretive little line -- the GOP may have made a Faustian bargain hitching their wagon to the Morning Star that represents the Religious Right, but the Religious Right simply cannot exist as a viable political unit without the GOP. Let them form a third party and watch themselves fade into obscurity and oblivion. Good riddance.
Meantime, don't drink Coors beer, since the aptly-named Adolph Coors family foundations give money to the CNP and assorted reactionary neo-theocratic groups. If they weren't being psychotically anti-democratic, they'd not need to hide behind their doors, with their secretive meetings. They don't worship God; they worship Mammon and Caesar, both.
-
Horay
This is th best thing that can happen the republcan party andour Demcoracy.The GOP hs spent to many years beckoning the votes of these anti consitutional religious fntics. good ridence.
-
I'm calling B.S. on this article. It's pure Dem. partisan wishful thinking
As another letter writer wrote
"the one consistent theme that characterizes this group is a revulsion to the far-left politics that seem to dominate the Democratic Party today: Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, moveon.org, the "leather Festival' in San Francisco, and the ACLU."
No social conservative is going to remove any chance for a conservative (even a moderate like Rudi) President to win by cleaving votes off on a quixotic campaign by a far right social conservative. IT JUST WON'T HAPPEN and it's partisan wishful-thinking.
This election is likely to come down to a few close districts in a few states for all the marbles.
-
A Democratic candidate could take a pro-life stance, or at least a neutral stance on abortion... and could come out against gay marriage, even if maybe endorsing gay unions.
No, they can't. Bush and Kerry were BOTH for civil unions and AGAINST gay marriage in 2004. It was a compromise: don't call it marriage but don't deny them rights. The right and those who vote with them never went for it; they regard any granting of "marriage" rights as tantamount to granting marriage itself. Regarding abortion there really is no way to compromise on the basics: either the right is guaranteed or it isn't (only the right to early abortion where the fetus has by any rational evaluation no morally human characteristics is constitutionally protected now. All "benefit of the doubt" regarding the development of human characteristics has already been granted to the pro life side and has been from the time Row v Wad was decided). So there isn't anything left to compromise on.