Letters to the Editor
-
Clive Crook
is in the tank for Obama big time. He's a Brit, isn't he?
-
Not all that odd
The Economist stopped being a serious political paper a decade ago. They bought into the Neocon position lock, stock and barrel. Some of their world coverage and economic coverage is still decent, but they are a shadow of their former selves. They hated Clinton and loved Bush. I'd say they simply see the writing on the wall and are hoping to slaver after whomever ends up with power.
I stopped subscribing to the Economist not long after they had a cover with Clinton saying "Just Go", urging him to resign. Despite all the crimes and horrors Bush has committed over his 8 years, never once have they even suggested that his departure might be best for the nation or the world.
-
How Bizarre
I can't believe that paragraph was published. Wow! It certainly seems as though the right does get it. Obama has the goods to bring enough voters along that he might be able to make significant changes. Scary...for the right wing anyway.
-
A note about my absence
I was hospitalized for pneumonia a week ago Saturday -- released after two days, and then sloooooooowly regained strength over the intervening week. My apologies!
-
Pneumonia is nasty... take care
I don't want to be too negative, but relapses sometimes happen. I have a friend who has had recurring problems since she has pneumonia last winter. This is not common, but it does happen. She didn't give herself enough time to recover, and it resulted in a recurrence followed by long-term lung damage.
That said - "the most left-wing since Nixon" requires some explanation for those of us whose only memory of Nixon is that the damned Watergate hearing pre-empted our regular afternoon cartoons. Is this supposed to be snark? The rest of the paragraph reads as if it's serious, but I was under the impression that Nixon was pretty conservative.
-
Pneumonia
I got it in October of 2006. It was probably 9 months before I really felt right again. Good luck and I'm glad you're back.
-
Conciliator?
Interesting how even The Economist has latched onto the myth of Obama as negotiator and conciliator. The myth may be true but it is still largely untested.
The strength of Obama is his ability to raise consensus through his rhetoric, optimism, and inclusiveness, and his apparent incorruptibility. Add to that his timing--after eight years of the lies of compassionate conservativism, war, and Bush's vacillation between obstreperous cowboy rhetoric and the deer in the headlights, most moderates will be quite willing to include themselves in Obama's optimistic self-assurance.
-
yes yes yes
Nixon founded the EPA, OSHA, expanded Welfare and Medicare/Medicaid and pushed Mine Safety legislation and a flurry of labor rights laws. Old Dick couldn't get elected on the Democratic ticket now, given the rightward sweep of the nation since.
But shit, what with Fidel Castro stepping down today I'm sure there are some Salon-o-tards who think HE'S not leftwing enough for them either.
-
Welcome back!
I'm sorry you were sick, Mr. Leonard, definitely glad you're on the mend; I missed you! Anymore, with the War Room descending into bedlam, I feel like "How The World Works" is the salon-within-Salon. Anyway, you were sorely missed.
As for "The Economist" -- I don't know! I'm so used to disagreeing with them, and yet, they're making points I've made throughout Obama's candidacy. I do feel that a new consensus can be reached with Obama, with the independents as a fulcrum, and the qualities his detractors use against him are precisely those which would make him able to get things done, particularly if the enthusiasm behind his candidacy leads to a real sweep in Congress -- a major House-cleaning, to say nothing of the Senate.
Harry Reid and the DLC types had their chance in 2006, and they blew it, royally. So, if an Obama win in the general brings in a new Democratic majority, a true majority (not a DINO weaker-than-tea majority), then there's a chance to get things going again, which can only help with the Democrats, since the GOP pursued an obstructionist policy since 2006. Fewer Republicans in Congress will mean fewer obstructionists and will force the DLC DINOs to caucus with the new Democratic majority, instead of with their Republican bedfellows.
-
@jebldmm
That said - "the most left-wing since Nixon" requires some explanation for those of us whose only memory of Nixon is that the damned Watergate hearing pre-empted our regular afternoon cartoons. Is this supposed to be snark? The rest of the paragraph reads as if it's serious, but I was under the impression that Nixon was pretty conservative.
It's weird, I know, given his image as the American Antichrist, but Nixon really was the last liberal American president. It probably wasn't something he wanted to be, but to outflank the still-active Left in this country back then, he enacted all manner of progressive legislation -- and there were still New Dealers in Congress back then, who knew how to legislate, could bring good bills through Congress. The New Right hadn't fully consolidated their hold on the GOP back then; they didn't really begin picking up steam until Reagan.
It's a sad state of how the Right came to dominate political discourse in this country that everybody since Nixon has governed to his right, and any discussion of "liberal" versus "conservative" is as relative as how those words are thrown around in the Supreme Court.
-
What Lynx said ...
Lynx's assessment of the Economist's decline is spot on. I refused to renew my subscription right after they endorsed Bush over Gore. On the dwindling numbers of occasions I have since read an odd copy, I found that their standards - and particulalry their overt anti-Democratic Party bias - has only grown worse, including such petty slights as refering to the "Democrat", rather than the "Democratic" party. Regrettable, as it once was an outstanding publication.
-
So the critics here are reading The Economist's optimistic praise of Obama
While they discount everything the Economist says as 'too right wing'. Oh well, must be something in the water today. But the truly interesting thing is that, for better or worse, no one is entirely sure what the policies or acts President McGuffin would be given his typically vaporous deferrals to "Hope" and "Change". I mean am I the only person who laughs when they hear 'empowerment'? That's a good one, the government has empowered you to freeze to death on the sidewalk this year. Because there's nothing more Liberal than choice itself.