Letters to the Editor
-
Joe, you said it all
I agree, for what it's worth...put up or shut up, both sides, I guess.
I can't add insights, cause I have none. But, as a liberal, I can't find much to disagree with about with your statements, Joe. Sorry. I know you are looking for valid disagreements (I am serious, here).
Can't we all (liberals and conservatives) find reason to agree? That is the hope of humankind.
Liberals know where of I speak.
love unto you all, everyone Jeff Johns
-
I agree too!
For perhaps the first time in my life, I find myself in some sort of perverse agreement with the hateful Conason.
Pelosi should tell the Republicans to fuck off.
If I were in a Republican majority, I would tell John Conyers, Charlie Rangel, Barney Frank and Henry Waxman to all fuck off too. As a matter of fact, I can't think of any circumstance when I would not find it useful to tell each and every one of those guys to fuck off.
But the difference between the last Congress and this one is that the last Congress didn't have to worry - much - about a Presidential veto. This Congress can (and will, no doubt) find its real power not in passing any legisltation, but rather in vandalizing the Bush Administration. Because any real leftward lurch in legislation is going to get vetoed. There is a thin Democratic majority. No a veto-proof majority.
-
No chumps!
It may be liberal instinct for the victor to reach out to the vanquished, but these bullying thugs only see that as a sign of weakness and time to pounce. Notice how every effort made in Pelosi's speech to ask for cooperation, compassion, fairness, openness, honesty, Mom, apple pie, et al was met with stoney silence by the GOPigs. It must have become apparent to them that the cameras were showing this because a few of them began trying to haul their colleagues' lardasses out of their seats during ovations, but rarely were enough of them standing en masse to hide Fat Bastert sitting in the back row, scowling.
We have survived a coup that was orchestrated using nothing but lies, pumped into millions of empty redneck heads by nearly every AM radio station in the country. If the Dems value the survival of their majority, one of the first things they will do is revisit the Telecommunications Act and Fairness Doctrine. As with impeachment, they should lead with investigative hearings: In this case, Kathleen Hall Jamison of the Annenberg School of Communication at UPenn would make an excellent witness explaining her extensive research on the lies of right wing talk radio, which she says created "false certainty" among millions (enough to swing elections) who can not fathom the radio would be allowed to lie so blatantly to them. This is the very definition of the Big Lie theory.
Why not put the Chairman of ABC, Democrat eminence George Mitchell, under oath and have him explain why his entire station network was turned over to far right wing extremists who were allowed to lie without challenge 24/7 for 15 years, took over and wrecked the Federal government? Or can the Faux News team can stop lying long to avoid Federal perjury charges for repeating those Big Lies before Congress?
Anything less will allow the mammoth rightist disinformation operation known as AM talk radio to freely swat down every Democratic initiative, with no balance in sight even as Air America struggles to find the legs to match its voice.
-
Agree with gregrocker
"Why not put the Chairman of ABC, Democrat eminence George Mitchell, under oath and have him explain why his entire station network was turned over to far right wing extremists who were allowed to lie without challenge 24/7 for 15 years"
posted by gregrocker.
Sounds like a reasonable course of action to me. Let's throw in the editors of the N.Y. Times, most of CNN's staff, and the Washington Post all of whom at one time or another abetted this ridiculous oil war. The Times witholding the NSA spy info until after the Presidential elections is a particular point that needs to be explained under oath.
-
Chain Reactionary
Liberals always get themselves in a bind against reactionaries (the most polite term I can use for the GOP in its current theocratic neofascist incarnation), because liberals hold the "can't we all just get along" kind of attitude toward everybody, and are busy trying to be ecumenical and accommodating to the opposition.
Reactionaries, conversely, are tied inexorably to "us versus them" thinking, see the opposition as the enemy to be vanquished. The GOP's allegiance to itself -- Party above all else (hence the discipline and unity that made it appear so monolithic and obedient to the Leader) -- gives them huge flexibility in dealing with events and issues, because they toe a hard line, with the political fortunes of the Party being more important than any broader national benefit. They truly see what's good for the GOP as being good for the country, when that's demonstrably not the case.
That's why they're whining so vocally about the need for bipartisanship (which, in their view, is the Dems accommodating them, not the other way around) -- it gives them face time, lets them try to make the enemy look bad. If being obstructionist serves the Party's interests, they'll do that, too. They'll do whatever it takes to get back in power again. They'll flip-flop on whatever issue of the moment that helps them (and deny that they're flip-flopping). Perhaps now that they're out of power, they'll rekindle the term limits issue that they spoke so much about before 1994, and then fell silent on as they became a majority.
About one-third of the country will always support reactionary policies, regardless. Bush could light the Bill of Rights on fire and one-third of the country would blindly praise his bold Leadership. That's the advantage of having a hard, ideological "my country right or wrong" kind of base. The disadvantage of it, and this is what the Dems should exploit, is that most Americans aren't in lockstep with the GOP agenda -- most Americans oppose it, which is why the Party relied on scare tactics (and, ahem, voter suppression) in elections.
The Democrats should be bold, not timid, and shouldn't let the displaced bullies cow them. The majority of Americans are in agreement with Democratic (and liberal) priorities -- the GOP always talks about opposing appeasement. The Democrats should definitely not appease the Republicans.