Letters to the Editor
-
Rumors: Clement & Hatch
http://www.cnbc.com/id/20462117
August 27, 2007 / 11:33 AM ET
Clement Replacing Gonzales: More Than An 'Acting' AG?
Posted By:John Harwood[...] tapping the acting Attorney General in the name of continuity could prove the path of least resistance.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/20463200
August 27, 2007 / 1:11 PM ET
Orrin Hatch: Could He Be The Next Attorney General?
Posted By:John Harwood[...] Hatch would bring this unequivocal benefit: the ability to be readily confirmed by a Democratic-controlled Senate.
- - John Harwood's "Political Capital" blog at CNBC
-
Dereck
@Kitt
Kitt-
Hmmm. So, it's wrong for me to think that money matters to Glenn, eh? Then why would Glenn write this to Che Pasa earlier today:
"Big bloggers" are you call them didn't get to be that by lottery pick. People choose which bloggers they read. There ARE BLOGGERS who believe in street demonstrations and urge them on. If they don't have a large audience, it must be because there isn't a big market for people who believe in such protests.
"There isn't a big market for people who believe in such protests." That statement can *only* be written by someone who thinks about the market (and what they are doing in it... especially considering he was writing about blogging). It would seem from this statement that he believes there is a market for his type of blogging. And considering the responses he gets in the comment section... he's correct! Now, tell me again, how is it an insult to think he won't change his tactics because he's making good money with his current tactic? When he himself brings the point up?
Dereck, You're misrepresenting "market". Glenn isn't talking about money. He's talking about interest in general approach. There is no way in heck that a person could honestly say that Glenn would change his approach to promoting street protest as the best avenue if he suddenly saw that as an opportunity to bring income into his blog. That is as an absolutely insulting and incorrect take on what he does as you could possibly come to.
Basically, because I think you're holding hard to your position, you're not seeing what is being said to you in an honest light.
-
Glenn, this is important - please read
Now that you're making all that moolah, how about loaning me a couple hundred thou so Mona and I can run off to some nice tropical island and live in peace and harmony.
I'll pay you back on payday.
-
Candidate beyond reproach?
Might I suggest Ted Kennedy for the bar?
Or is that at the bar...with a water chaser...
-
The Paris Hilton Party
i_ween:
Paul wrote:
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!
actually, and here is a point I am sure you will not recall in your list, if Gore had gotten ANY (453) of the 300,000+ votes from Democrats that voted for Bush in Florida....
Ah, it is easy to place blame where blame belongs... Gore lost in Florida because he didn't get enough votes. Or, actually, he did and he handed the presidency to Bush in his role as VP in the Senate anyway...
My point was the sheer irrelevancy of an individual choosing to vote for a third party, which, in our electoral system (with but a handful of exceptions), can only result in empowering those one most despises.
This is a purely logical consequence of our political system, and if, like myself, you think this system is dysfunctional (my first op-ed on proportional representation was pubished in 1994), then you have to attack it in a manner that recognizes and responds to its inherent logic.
Hence: First, change the electoral rules, then think about third parties. Otherwise, you're being just as simple-minded as the system to presume to look down on.
You, of course, could only thinking of bashing Democrats.
Typical.
-
Kitt:
There have been "why bother" posts all over this thread.
Actually there have been relatively few, and my point was that they're quite different from actually giving up or encouraging the rest of us to give up.
But you already knew that.
-
Tom
But you already knew that.
-- Tom 70
No, Tom, I didn't "already know that" and I don't agree with it now, either. I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you really believed that what you we're saying was true. I would have appreciated it if you would have chosen not to call me a liar, but to recognize that I was and am giving you my honest take and opinion.
As for the subject content, I don't want to bother reposting the many examples that make the case. But they are all right there for the taking if you should choose to relive this thread.
-
Paul
You are right. I misread your post. Sorry about that. I realized it *after* I posted it. So again: sorry about that.
I am with you 100% on changing the electoral rules. I happen to think that in order to accomplish this, we need the people to be thinking about third parties... so they support the electoral changes.
As I am sure you are aware, the two-parties won't change the rules. It's the rules that make third parties irrelevant.
So, how do we get those invested in the rules, those who guard the rules, and the very same people that have the ability to change the rules, to change the rules? I think it is by having the people demand that they change the rules. And for this to happen, they will need to be thinking about third parties.
Phew! Round and round we go! :)
Peace,
-Derek (without a 'c')
-
You wanna mix it up? Let's mix it up. Here, hold my coat...
(Note in passing: I wonder why Gonzo's departure has triggered such... erm, emotion. Oh well...)
First, to those "who don't see it" -- ie: Glenn's mockery and denunciation of those who advocate a more, let's say, publically confrontational approach to change, I don't believe you. I know, I know, that's rude, but come on, when you don't see mockery in Glenn's responses to some commenters, you're either not paying any attention at all, and thus don't deserve any further consideration, or you're just playing around. And I can't really say in either case that your defenses of Glenn are serving him well.
Second, his main response to my post is really something of a classic of the genre. He does what he does very well, and in this case, what he does is, well... hilarious. But anyway...
Let's have at it:
(You'll find the post in question aqui:
http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/08/27/gonzales/permalink/0cf4ced511fb96c25721fc1d2e5c094a.html)
A) In response to my point about us having plenty of experience with Democrats being impervious to calls, letters, emails, and blogger snark from the "left" -- so called -- Glenn says: "The difference is that on the past issues, they could argue, not inaccurately, that because of Blue Dogs, they couldn't get the votes to do what you wanted them to do (de-fund the war, rescind habeas, block the FISA amendments). Here, they don't need Blue Dogs to block an appointment." If we were in court, I'd move to strike, because his statement is nonresponsive to my point -- that we have plenty of experience to guide us in predicting what the Dems will do THIS time. Differences between then and now are all well and good, but experience with the actions of these people, not their arguments counts, a lot.
B) I did not and have not claimed that Glenn "argues against" demonstrations. I said he is "antipathetic" to them, that is, not in sympathy with them. So far as I know, he has never said -- and I have never claimed he said -- that one shouldn't "take it to the streets." And yet, somehow he extracts that claim from my comment. He's wrong.
C) Yes, I know I should get off my ass and go kick it in the streets, sigh. Oh bother, I have so many other things to do. Let's see: apart from the protests and general strikes scheduled for September 7, 11, 15, 21, and possibly the 28th (still under review, but I think it is a go), I've got to get some laundry done, get the van serviced, somehow get some work done, and from time to time look in here. So much to do, so little time. Oh, and get some blogging posted to my own sites. Yikes! As for thinking that "only" demonstrations work, that ain't my thought, nor is it anything I have said here or anywhere else. In fact, over the short term, demonstrations usually don't work -- they're not really meant to have immediate results, duh -- and they are one of many actions the People need to take to precipitate change. Sitting around blogging can be a useful activity, too. I don't denounce it, but I don't think it's enough by itself, either.
D) Gee, Glenn, did you ever think that maybe, just maybe those who are most active in the protest movement in this country just don't have time to bother with the blogosphere much, and that those who do have time, maybe, just aren't that interested in Giant Puppets and all that stuff? Ya think? If I can manage one comment on your blog a day, I think I'm doing good. How many people here post every few minutes. I have no idea how anyone can do that.
E) Glenn sez: "But to blame "Big 'Lefty' Bloggers" for the lack of street protests is just sad." I do not "blame" Big "Lefty" Bloggers. I don't know anyone who does. This is one of Glenn's misrepresentations that's just shameful.
F) Then Glenn sez: "I think one sees changes - slowly but clearly. That hasn't come from street protests. It's come from people outside the mainstream discourse yelling and screaming and demanding to have their views heard, and slowly - in various ways - they are. That's what I believe in - persuading as many people as possible to think differently. That's what I do here." And so I'm absolutely sure that irony is not only dead, it can't be revived in several lifetimes. People in the streets are outside the "mainstream discourse" and sometimes (not very often any more) they can get loud and demanding, and... sometimes they are heard. Sometimes they persuade others (how many times have I encountered first time protestors who wonder why they waited so long to get off their asses and carry a sign calling for Impeachment). But according to Glenn, that's what he does. Except not in the streets. Ew. Willies. Hm. Maybe they're parallel tracks to the same destination? Oh no!
G) And this last little bit of snark is just plain bullshit, hilarious, but bullshit:
But depicting me as some sort of barrier to the glorious revolutionary marches relieves you of the obligation to do it yourself -- "nothing is happening that is meaningful because street marches give the Big Lefty Bloggers the willies and so it can't happen. Boo hoo."
No one is depicting Glenn as a "barrier" to the Revolution; it will come with or without you in any case, if it is to come. Glenn will have very little or no say in the matter (me, too). If anyone thinks he is standing in the way, think again. While he and the rest of the BigOBlogOSphere may not want to play "Revolution" or even get their hands dirty painting signs, they are in no position to stop what may be just around the corner.