Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Kathleen Reardon (at HuffPo) offers her husband's letter as a model for anyone else intending to write and complain about Kristol, or who might also wish to cancel their subscription:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathleen-reardon/my-husbands-farewell-to-_b_78674.html
I don't have a paid subscription, but I guess I could cancel my online registration. That'll show 'em!
Seriously, what were they thinking? They just did away with the paywall in order to give their columnists more air/play time, and now they do the one thing that is likely to have a plurality of the left wing threatening to cancel their subscriptions, if not actually doing so...
Much like Rove blaming Dems for the rush to war (well, he's a journalist, too, now, so the spin has one less degree of seperation), I think this one is chutzpah on steroids. "You're all idiots for voting for the candidates our system (and often us in particular) imposed on you. Try voting smarter despite the fact that we and the candidates won't talk about important issues, but instead focus on wedge issues and personal trivia."
As for the Times hiring Kristol, why don't they just re-hire Judy Miller. At least her bullshit stories had a ring of truthiness to them. Kristol is simply a balded face liar.
“Just how damn long does one have to spend in the political system to realize it is corrupt to the core?”
Obviously, the time differs for each person. Hagel was living with and seeking voters in the more corrupt side of the equation. Probably, it took the horrors of a stupid, unjust war and sufficient casualties for him to realize the price was too high.
Dodd, Biden, Feingold, Kucinich, Holt and others choose to try to work within it and find a way to keep from being corrupted.
Until we make much needed changes to the system, we need to identify and support those who choose to fight in an unfair battle ground and as many have previously said, support candidates who seriously believe they can change things without being corrupted.
I am not accusing you, but I detest the chicken little approach regardless of the sincerity of that frightened chicken.
and a third party could do very well ....
I don't think there's anyone with enough mojo -- this late in the game -- to pull a gen-u-wine spoiler upset -- and Bloomberg is too "regional." Like California, New York is in fact NOT seen as something desirable in the flyover regions.
However, I think depending on just how bad the next 4 year acturally turn out to be, the country might welcome a multi-billionare, as it welcomed JFK and FDR (wealthy "patricians" of their own time).
However, if "we" do, I would worry that it would be another giant step towards authoritarianism -- the ultra-wealthy being our "upper class" whose success is merely evidence of divine approval, etc.
... but we'll cross that next-electiong "change horses in midstream?" bridge, eek, in a (terrifying) mere 4 years...
o/t I keep wondering what all we might have been discussing, planning, arguing about for the last year if this @!@#$# suffocating wall-to-wall, every minute of the day, 24/7/365 and then some election coverage had not been allowed to feed the gaping maw of the MSM ... I wonder how many people besides me have far too many moments of hating them all, like guests who have long overstayed their (half-hearted) welcome. I'm sick of the whole thing.
"Bloomberg is basically just Rudy Giuliani with a billion or two dollars to spend to alter the election."
I know you are talking strictly from the standpoint of Presidential politics. However, for those who do not live in New York City, it might be worth pointing out that Bloomberg has been a vastly better mayor than Giuliani. Bloomberg may be a corporate oligarch, but in terms of effective governance of a NYC, he is not a delusional megalomaniacal batshit insane crackpot like Giuliani was.
stridently pro-gun-control, pro-choice, socially liberal... combat-avoiding, Bush-supporting, Middle-East-warmonger who sees U.S. and Israeli interests as indistinguishable and inextricably linked, with a fetish for ever-increasing government control and surveillance, and a background as a Wall St. billionaire.
way to describe the status quo, lol. Take big government from both sides and put them together, what's that spell? Compromise!
You don't have to be a neocon to be a warmonger, although you do have to be a warmonger to be a neocon. An Israel-first interventionist uber-statist warmonger who wants to control your behavior, sounds like the perfect super nanny to lead the sheep in the welfare/warfare police state.
I wonder if he supports an investigation into the assassination of Bhutto? You know, since it is our business and everything... So is Russia going to launch an independent investigation into who killed Martin Luther King? I'm sure the findings will be that OBL and friends were involved, and we will send Pakistan more money and further intervene over there. The money will be used by Mr. Military Dictator to be a Military Dictator, and hey, maybe we'll send some troops in too and kill some shit! That way those scum bags can see what US "Democracy" is all about (as if they didn't already know). Santa Claus will have a bunch more names on his Al CIAda naughty list from the awesome recruiting effort that comes with the perception of dictatorship and oppression! Merry Christmas Pakistan, more US money and National Interests are heading your way!
All the talk is not if we are going to do anything, but what? And how much? More meddling... Merry Christmas, OBL.
Aren't all calls for "bi-partisanship" really, reduced to their essence, calls for single party rule? Of course, run by Republicans?
Give this person a prize!
"Bi-partisanship" in this context is nothing more than asking Democrats to pipe down.
Who will dump the religious nuts and violent extremists that were useful for coming to power but are increasingly a hard to control liability first:
Pervez Musharraf or the Republican Party?
Oh, and before anyone tells me this isn't a fair comparison, you're absolutely right. The religious nuts and violent extremists in Pakistan are responsible for a few thousand or possibly tens of thousands of deaths (if you count all the cross-border terrorists since the 90's), the religious nuts and violent extremists here - a many hundred of thousands since 2001.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
