Letters to the Editor
-
LWM? You here?
Just curious, since you yourself have said -- quite recently -- that Lieberman is good on everything except the war. Like to chime in?
-
So again, what is the target?
What would Dems need to do anything, anything at all? 60 seats in the Senate? 80? 300 in the House? Whatever it is it's always a little out of reach. Isn't blaming everyone else and the eternal Emmanuel Goldstein getting a little tired ?
-
Aycharaych
Blogs are extremist on the whole, depending of course on how you define "extremist". I don't think there are all that many passionately committed moderates out there, blogging hard for the center. Goldwater was right, extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. The Founding Fathers were certainly extremists, I wonder how your friends would have thought of them back in the day?
I agree that the power status quo looks at any challenge to its dominance as "extreme" and therefore suspect. I've been counseled enough times to go with the flow that I know even a common sense idea--or in this case, policy that the majority of Americans agree with on paper, such as getting out of Iraq and having the option for universal healthcare--can be shrugged off as naive. So I think passion is great, necessary, and yet passion and enthusiasm, especially for Great Idea(l)s, are often considered naive. I wish it weren't that way, but I have to put it out there so that we know what we're fighting against.
Anyone who is an uncommitted moderate these days is a low information voter or stupid/apathetic and probably doesn't have anything worthwhile to say anyway.
With respect, this view is what turns a lot of people we need to reach off of the blogs. Knowledge is power and the truth does set you free. Failure of imaginiation and courage to defend our ideals are indeed problems that can be solved through individual action toward self-education.
People who shun these "extremes" don't consider themselves low-information or stupid and apathetic, however. And they do consider themselves as having opinions that are worthwhile. Getting our media to be closer to the blogs, closer to the unbaised truth/facts of the matter is indeed a huge priority because most Americans get their news from conventional sources (thank goodness that seems to be changing!) Getting these people involved in the good fight, as it were, means understanding and respecting their positions. I think Dems have lost their way somewhat by compromising their right to discourse--we can respectfully disagree and compromise without folding completely. That's my hope anyway.
-
Aycharaych
... depending of course on how you define "extremist". ... Goldwater was right, extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. The Founding Fathers were certainly extremists, I wonder how your friends would have thought of them back in the day?
I doubt we could get a large majority of Americans to all agree with each other on what "liberty" is these days. The freedom to do as you are ordered by armed men is not my idea of "liberty". Nor is being caged like an animal for ingesting an organic substance that is not on my master's list of approved chemicals.
-
I know quite a number of people
...who do not read blogs, are very progressive and/or liberal in their political values, and are also well-informed on important issues.
I keep meaning to ask how they do it... my sense is that most of them don't have time to read blogs, much less pages and pages of comments.
When I find out, I'll report back.
-
I'm with All Loomis
At least half of the US public would have been comfortable in Nazi Germany. There's a reason why Bush received roughly half of the vote in 2000 and 2004 and why after the last 8 years that included Iraq, WMDs that never existed, mission accomplished, Abu Grhaib, non-stop lies, deception, unprecedented corruption, trillions of dollars of debt, Katrina, Alberto Gonzales, Enron, the sub-prime mortgage catastrophy, illegal wire-tapping and I could go on for hours, McCain has a 50/50 chance of becoming the next president. This is the same public where a majority, or a sizable minority, depending on which poll you believe, believes that the universe was created in 6 days, that humans lived with the dinosaurs, that ignorance is honorable and that the rest of the world is despicable and immoral and doesn't deserve knowing. Bush, Cheney, Lieberman, Reid and their likes are products of that public.
-
I saw the interview...
... and came to the conclusion that Reid is under heavy sedation. I'm sure that deep down he's a very nice, decent man but he is not operating on all cylinders. Has anyone checked for lobotomy scars?
Perhaps Lieberman has scanadalous photographs of Harry drinking coffee and smoking cigarettes, or a receipt that proves he wears Fruit of the Looms instead of magic Mormon underwear. Right after we've marched the Republican leadership to the Hague or the gallows, our next step is getting our Democratic leadership into intensive psychotherapy.
-
Reid has it backwads
Reid had it backwards, there's only one issue that sets Lieberman apart from voting straight ticket Republican on all their issues: reproductive rights.
-
The Bush Jr. Era
The Bush Jr. era has laid bare, for all to see, the racism-cum-exceptionalism that lies at the foundation of American foreign policy and laid bare the false choice that lies at the foundation of American politics.
Nowhere is this clearer than on the subject of "war". Whether Hillary Clinton (for example) or John McCain (for example), both are prepared to bomb-and-obliterate Iran. And whether or not it is George W. Bush (for example) or Hillary Clinton (for example) or John McCain (for example) who puts the public face on the decision, if Harry Reid (for example) or Joe Lieberman (for example) has any role to play, it will be played in support of war.
Stop pretending that your most powerful politicians - such as, for example, Harry Reid - don't all share the same view of war and the same view of anything else relevant to the projection of American power.
It's embarrassing.
-
Revealing
Another interesting thing I'm noticing is that the Democrats seem to be the far more "bipartisan" party than the Republicans. On issues such as telecom amnesty and torture, Republicans voted startlingly monolithically along party lines, while Dems saw splits within their own party. I suspect this boils down to the indentity conflict for Dems (they are supposed to support the Left-the only way to balance the democratic process, but they've been dragged to the right over the years, leaving us without a balanced center).
Either way, "partisanism" seems to be a convenient charge for Republicans to level at Democrats, except that it's demonstrably false. Never mind-when has the truth interfered with a good argument?