Letters to the Editor
-
i_ween
When will it be too much for you? Since you probably make a good living, maybe never.
As you correctly surmise, I have become extremely rich defending the two-party system. My financial incentives are far too great to ever support a third-party candidate. Just as you assume, deep down I agree with you completely -- we need Ralph Nader -- but I'm far too financially corrupted ever to admit it.
So there is really no need to keeping coming here and keep trying to convince me. It's all about the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$, just as you (with very ample bases) insinuate.
-
Latest Rumor: "it will not be Chertoff"
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/08/27/gonzales-replacement-speculation-in-full-force/
[...] Meanwhile, a congressional source familiar with deliberations about Gonzales' replacement tells CNN's Dana Bash the impression is that it will not be Chertoff and that the media is "playing us."
[...] Another name being floated is Larry Thompson, the former deputy Attorney General until 2003, and now a general counsel at PepsiCo Corporation.
Thompson has been spotted at the Justice Department in the last couple of weeks, according to another congressional source with close connections to the DOJ.
- - CNN "Political Ticker" blog
-
The Major Is Slipping!
Not enough CAPITAL LETTERS in this most recent post, not by a LONG SHOT!
BUCK UP!
You want we should DEMOTE YOU to CAPTAIN?
-
Ché Pasa
i call BS.
here are your earlier quotes:
Glenn has long asserted that public demonstrations of displeasure with the actions of our government, or protest assemblies for redress of grievance are "ineffective," and thus not worth his time to do more than mock or denounce their advocates.
Just more mockery, denunciation, and misrepresenting the positions of advocates of direct public action.
glenn did not mock either Nequals1 nor rbsalonlo for advocating a public demonstration or nonviolent direct public action... i believe (glenn can correct me if i'm wrong here) his mocking was aimed at what he perceived as defeatism. which is something he does - a lot. if you don't like that, at least complain about something he actually does.
-
Che Pasa
Again, more mockery, and more misrepresentation, but nobody saw it...
You can look all you want and you will not find mockery from me of people who organize or attend demonstrations, street protests, etc. I don't oppose or scorn people who do that.
What you have excerpted is no such thing - if it is "mockery" of anything, it is of people who spend their time at blogs complaining that what happens at blogs is completely irrelevant and/or people who complain that bloggers aren't leading a Real Revolution while doing nothing themselves to bring about what they think we need.
-
C. Pasa
I'm sure this will frustrate you, since you see what you see as clearly as I see what I see (or don't see, in this case). But I gotta say, that doesn't come off as "mockery" to me, or even condescension. Perhaps there's a bit of frustration in Glenn's tone, since he's working so hard to make a difference, and some are indeed defeatist. A guy who's bailing water out of a sinking boat as fast as he can with the bucket he's got, isn't going to want to hear "We're all gonna die!" from someone who isn't bailing at all. But that said, I think Glenn's tone is civil and his words very much in direct response to what the poster(s) said.
Notice I said, "I think..." You're welcome to your interpretation. Just don't imagine it's the only viable one.
-
And foidamoah...
The poster who advocated a total revolution -- and that's what he/she said -- did deserve to be reminded that some of us see the edifice of government as salvageable, and that some of us are working hard to turn things around, and that those people working hard would be interested to know what exactly those who are saying all is lost and that only total revolution will save us are doing about that, and that if they're not doing anything about it would they please shut up and let those who are working to save ALL of us get on with their work.
-
Oh! NOW I Understand!
i_ween:
When will it end? When you start voting third party.
If only Ralph Nader had gotten 97,489 votes in Florida in 2000, instead of 97,488, all would be solved!
Or, maybe if Harry Browne had gotten 16,416 in Florida, instead of 16,415, since you fail to distinguish at all between the wide array of third parties out there.
Perhaps Natural Law will do it? F=m*a! Now there's a slogan for ya!
-
@che Pasa
"Never seen it" my ass. Grumble, growl...
-- Ché Pasa
That read like apples and oranges to me, Che Pasa. Yeah, Glenn mocks people who do the bit about 'Rove knows all' so why bother or 'Bush will just do this or that and the Dems will fold' so why bother.
That kind of stuff wasn't the question you put to him or that he answered to. You accused him of specifically mocking physical protest demonstrations as one alternative to many others. None of the examples you gave were about that. None of them.
-
in defense of Nequals1
glenn - to claim that Nequals1 is "doing nothing themselves to bring about what they think we need." is both inaccurate and unfair. Nequals1 is a frequent commenter at FDL, and has obviously worked hard in the field of health care to bring about a more just system - at great personal sacrifice.
please don't assume that people who disagree with you or have positions you don't like are doing nothing.
-
stalemate, probably
The bigger picture is that the 2008 election looms over all, and that Bush is going for showdowns with Congress over Iraq and the budget between now and December.
The issue picture is that Democrats own domestic issues and their strength is the incremental decorruption of (Republican) governance. As a Party, Democrats can't afford to blow it on the Gonzalez aftermath. Republicans have a net weaker hand, but can stalemate Democrats on war and terrorism issues, and then have the advantage of incumbancy in the White House to leverage that into an asymmetric overall stalemate. Gridlock of the kind breaks by one side failing internally.
I don't think anyone wants the AG job at this point. The only purpose it has in Republican hands is to increase their chances in November '08 by criminal or dubious means, and after Gonzalez and Rove got caught redhanded there's going to be vicious Democratic scrutiny and voter cynicism of any DoJ actions. And zero gratitude, if not punishment, from Republicans for doing anything right. So it's a career ender job, and the Department's only reasonable role is to fade to background and limp/crawl to January '09 in silence.
My prediction is Clement stays in place. But all this latent fear coming to the surface and driving what all these elderly Senators do and diffusing into all realms of policy.... I remember when the liberal Jewish Senators were probably the the most intelligent and most courageous Democratic contingent in Congress in the early and middle Nineties. Now....not that other Senators have been unaffected, or that it's struck all of them, but their particular overall decline is awful since Al Qaeda and Iraq became the fixation of American foreign policy.