Letters to the Editor
-
Cohen's revisionism
As you point out, Cohen's grasp of history is murky at best, as demonstrated by his comments back in 2003 concerning Powell's "without a doubt" speech to the UN. But Cohen fully reveals his revisionist bent when he concludes that the "angry left" of the Democratic party were responsible for Nixon's election in 1968 -- a view that completely ignores the impact of RFK's assassination, which happened in the middle of the '68 campaign and basically dashed the party's chances for unity on the Vietnam issue. If Kennedy had lived to attend the Chicago convention, it's quite likely he would have defeated Hubert Humphrey for the nomination and gone on to defeat Nixon in the general election (and quite possibly, the infamous Chicago police riots might never have happened).
Of course, historians never dabble in "what ifs," but again, the event alone should at least merit a mention from Cohen.
-
Cohen
A regular columnist for the Washington Post is always going to be a right wing propagandaist.
If we're ever going to see honesty in the mainstream media, I think the whole system (state-capitalism?) needs to change.
-
But he has a point...
The constant hatred of democrats twoards anyone that doesn't feel the same way and obvious Bush Bashing (War Room is an EXCELLENT example) isn't going to get democrats in power. This is why in 2006 and 2008 I'm not expecting a change. In 2004 it was a foregone conclusion, the country hates Bush and there is no way he'll win. Look what happened. We were so stuck in our Blog bubbles and believed what our miniature world thought, was what everyone though.
This constant tearing down of the other side has to stop. It isn't building bridges between the parties. Not everyone is a fanatic. Connecting with the opposite side and trying to get them to listen to our ideas is the correct way to go about this, not bashing them and telling them they are in the same group of idiots as Bush. They will only shut you down and believe even more in what they do now.
-
We Have Every Right to be Angry
When people take office who didn't win the popular vote, and then treat the "opposition" like traitors, that's a legitimate cause for anger.
When those same people use misleading, scurrilious and just plain wrong information to start a war of choice that they neither plan for nor execute well, a war that has produced 2415 deaths, thousands of amputees, and mountains of corruption, with no end in sight. . . that is a legitimate cause for anger.
When those same people blatantly disregard the Constitution, choosing to follow only those laws they decide to obey, including the illegal spying on its own citizens, and then boast that somehow this makes us all safer, that, too is a cause to be angry.
When those same people support dismantling this country's half-century old dedication to human rights and the Geneva Conventions and engage in a policy of kidnapping and torturing suspects, when this country becomes a thuggish, sinister threat in the eyes of our own democratic allies. . . and when that torture isn't even accomplishing anything, anyway, that is a reason for anger.
When these same people repeated assert that it is the opposition who are fiscally reckless, "tax and spend", and then proceed to not only obliterate the hard-won surpluses that that opposition built for them before they came to office, but to spend and borrow at ruinous rates, continually increasing this country's debt to unthinkable levels, while providing nothing of help to a struggling middle class, that is reason to be very, very pissed off indeed.
So don't tell ME, Mr. Cohen, that my anger is the problem.
The problem is not enough people in this country have gotten angry enough.
I'm not going to throw rocks. I'm going to throw the bums out.
Me and a bunch of angry folks who are sick of what's being done to ruin this country.
-
Re: But he has a point...
In November, 2004, Bush's approval rating was in the low 50s. Anyone who assumed that a majority of people hating Bush was deluded and, as you say, believing what everyone in their own insulated "blog bubble" believed.
Today, Bush's approval in in the low 30s, and anyone who thinks that a majority of people hate Bush is no longer deluded.
Does this mean an easy win for Democrats in the midterm elections? Maybe not, since gerrymandering of Congressional districts is very good at reinforcing political inertia, but this is hardly a case of "I'm absolutely sure Kerry will win because everyone I know personally plans to vote for him."
-
You thin-skinned hypocrites
You're only proving his point. Colbert's performance will be a blip on history's radar, like Don Imus' attack on the Clintons. No one's going to remember this come election time -- that is, other than the people voting Democratic anyway.
To compare this to some sort of revolution is ludicrous. So he got to mock Bush to his face. Big deal. If the situation was reversed, the left would say the comedian was not funny and the right would be salivating with glee, typing in their barely read blogs with one hand, if you know what a mean.
Salon's always been big on polarization, but this really takes the cake.
-
Cohen
Regarding the emails Cohen has received: Cohen seems to have gone to the Bush Neocon School of Human Relations where they teach (preach?) that the average U.S. citizen is not smart enough to initiate an email on their own.
.
He appears to also be among those who see their power to shape public opinion being usurped by the multitude of forums open to us via the internet. And he does not like it. How dare we seek new avenues of information and opinion. Had it not been for the internet, most of us would probably never have known about Colbert's remarks at that dinner for dinosaurs.
-
Sorry, Was That Rude?
You know what, Richard Cohen? It's not outspoken, passionate to the point of (God Forbid!) "rude" defense of principals that will cost the Democratic candidates elections in '06. It's the failure to be passionate and outspoken that characterized the elections in '02 and '04, which you clearly still endorse. God forbid, the Democratic candidates might, along with their supporters, discover their testicles. Double-check to see if yours are still there, Rich.