Letters to the Editor

[Swimmy]

Letters to the Editor

Bruce,
If you were addressing the clintons' oppulant traveling and how expensive it was to shuttle them to Europe, I would totally agree with you.

But in this instance where President Bush traveled to California during the fires, I couldn't disagree more. It was imperative that the President travel there to present an address there. His role was for moral support to those adversely affected by the fire. His presence gave the citizens a sense of hope that the government will help pick them back up from despair.

Unlike LA or MS, CA quickly recognized the urgency for federal assistance and requested it. President Bush, did the right thing by traveling there, rather than placing an impersonal phone call.

[dgriffin]

Possibly this guy complained when Bush DIDN'T go to New Orleans. We could save a lot of newsprint and trees if folks would just keep their letters to the simple phrase, "I hate Bush."
Actually, I've been wondering lately about why so many people hate the guy. I never believe in the obvious, so I can't accept that many people I run into have given his policies enough thought to form intelligent opinions about why they dislike the guy. I have to assume it's the media's treatment of him that has yielded such a negative aura around his presidency. I don't agree with all of his policies, but I think it's politically immature to hate a a politician.

[frankcor]

Why do people hate him? Two reasons:

1. that unfortunate nervous smile he has that is so easily mistaken for an arrogant smirk

2. he stole the election in Florida.

If he had it to do all over again, I bet he'd either get botox treatment for the grin or just conceded the election to Gore.

[dgriffin]

Well, I notice the arrogant smirk has been gone for quite a while, so he must have gotten a Facial Coach. As for stealing the election, it has never been clear to me who were the greater offenders. And besides, the whole argument quickly degenerated into a lot of dumb remarks about the electoral college, etc. Rather than being for a popular election (of sorts) I might rather go back to the President being elected by state legislatures (which I believe is still the case, technically, via the electoral college.) It would restore the office of the president back to its rightful and lackluster place and shift the emphasis to the bums we elect to our legislartures and to the congress. If we as a nation need a superhero, we can have our own Royalty, like the Brits, or choose someone who looks the part like Tom Cruise or Johnny Depp (in his Pirate costume, as the typical American.)

[Swimmy]

I'd also be in favor of reinstating the procedures for Senators too. I believe the State Senates voted on those. I'll be that if that were still the procedure today, hrc wouldn't be our absentee senator from arkansas, the carpetbagging mongrol.

[frankcor]

Here's a well written opinion on this topic, or rather the rationale behind superdelegates in the democrat party primary process. But it applies to the discussion of representative republics versus pure democracies.

Memo To The Superdelegates

[dgriffin]

Good article. And a good antidote to the concept that political arrangements should always come from a "moral" perspective, when in fact they often come from a pragmatic consideration of how best to govern ourselves.

[frankcor]

I found in reading the comments following the column on the Times' web site that it was easy to spot which folks were supporting Hillary and which were supporting Obama.