|
Letters from our
Readers - February 2008
DÉJŔ VU OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN
Daniel Ellsberg, the country's most famous whistleblower, fears that before George W. Bush and Dick Cheney leave office, they will try to attack Iran.
Ellsberg's argument gained merit as the president increased his rhetoric against Iran in his final State of the Union Address. Bush accused Iran of training militia extremists in Iraq and emphasized the United States will confront its enemies.
When asked about the 1965 speech he wrote for Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, rationalizing the Vietnam War, Ellsberg said, "That was not my finest hour.”
Ellsberg wishes he had spoken out against the Vietnam War sooner. As a civilian working for the government, he says his oath was always to the Constitution, and he violated that oath until the day he decided to leak the Pentagon Papers in 1971 to reveal the war was unlawful.
Ellsberg makes another comparison. "After all, it was about a year ago that Bush really stopped pressing the nuclear program as the main reason to start attacking Iran and started talking about what they were doing against U.S. forces in Iraq." Ellsberg claims people in the military have recently undercut this statement by saying there is no evidence of Iran's involvement against U.S. forces in Iraq.
Recently, Ellsberg experienced deja vu when the White House and a complicit media portrayed an incident in the Strait of Hormuz that deeply paralleled another questionable incident in 1964. The Gulf of Tonkin incident was an alleged attack by North Vietnamese ships upon American boats. As a result of this alleged aggression, Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which gave President Johnson permission to expand the Vietnam War.
The recent encounter alleged that serious threats were made to U.S. ships by Iranian speedboats. Within days of the events in the Straight of Hormuz, information revealed the details of the entire event had been fabricated.
When asked by Tony Capaccio with Bloomberg News whether any of the vessels had anti-ship missiles or torpedoes, Vice Adm. Kevin Cosgriff, Commander of the 5th Fleet, answered that none of them had either of those two weapons. He said that nowhere in the reports did anyone say there was reason to fear the five small boats.
The edited Navy video shows a crewman issuing an initial warning to approaching boats, but the footage of the boats maneuvering provides no visual evidence of Iranian boats "making a run on U.S. ships" as claimed by CBS news..
Vice Adm. Cosgriff also failed to claim any run toward the U.S. ships following the initial warning. Cosgriff suggested that the Iranian boat's maneuvers were "unduly provocative" only because of the "aggregate of their maneuvers, the radio call and the dropping of objects in the water".
He described the objects dropped by the Iranian boat as being "white, box-like objects that floated". That description indicates that the objects were clearly not mines, which would have been dark and would have sunk immediately. Cosgriff indicated that the ships merely "passed by them safely" without bothering to investigate whether they were explosives of some kind. (Official Version of Naval Incident Starts to Unravel By Gareth Porter
Inter Press Service 10 January 2008)
I wonder what the odds are of Vice Admiral Cosgriff getting his promotion to admiral anytime soon?
The Bush Administration, driven and manipulated by Vice President Cheney, has claimed for months that Iran had a nuclear bomb program but the December announcement by the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) revealed that Iran did not have an active nuclear program.
The report itself was surprising since the administration had said weeks earlier it had no intention of putting out NIE summaries at all. However, according to newspaper reports, the release became necessary because there was a “threat of leaks.”
Indeed there was a threat! According to Ellsberg, intelligence officials were prepared to revolt and go to jail if the administration did not release those findings. But Ellsberg also says Bush will simply find a different pretext from the nuclear program to start his war.
Bush didn't have to wait long for another pretext. On Feb. 4, Iran test-fired the Explorer-1 rocket into space, which they say is designed to launch the Hope space research satellite.
In answer to concerns voiced in Moscow, Iran's ambassador to Russia responded, "Russia is our friend, and if necessary, we are ready to give an exhaustive explanation over the missile launch if we feel Russia is anxious.” (www.chinaview.cn, Feb 8, 2008
Iran's Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani said that the solid-liquid fuel missile had been designed to put satellites into orbit and not for military purposes.
However a US intelligence official said Washington did not view the Shahab-3 as a space-launch vehicle, but as a missile.
Who are we to believe? Either the Iranians have only peaceful plans as they say or the US intelligence is right and they plan to blow us all to smithereens. We didn't believe Saddam when he said he had no weapons of mass destruction. The Pentagon said he lied and we went to war. And we know how that turned out, don't we? Are we about to make the same mistake with Iran?
The Senate virtually gave Bush his own version of the Tonkin Gulf Resolution last September when they declared that Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps is a terrorist organization.
The Senate's action is tantamount to saying that the president can attack Iran anytime he wants. To give ANY president that discretion is flirting with trouble. But to give it to this particular president at this particular time with this particular vice-president calling the shots is inexcusable and outrageous.
Willie Nelson smoked pot in the Whitehouse and claims 9/11 was a hoax. I don't put much stock in that. But on the other hand, Willie never lied to me, either. Bush and Cheney did.
Ronald Reagan once said, “Trust but verify.” The same should apply when the American people listen to Willie, the media or the Bush Administration.
Bill Barnes
Conroe, TX
Money For Nothing, Rings For Free
How Texas' USF Gives Big-Telecom Access To Your Wallet
Texas taxpayers are a generous lot. Just ask the good folks at Windstream Communications, who state bureaucrats say improperly received more than $6 million from Texans over the last seven years. Operating then under the name Valor Telecommunications, the company is accused by regulators of taking advantage of the outdated, unaccountable Texas Universal Service Fund – one of the dizzying array of fees and charges on your monthly phone bill.
Windstream strenuously maintains that they have done nothing wrong.
The Texas Public Utilities Commission is investigating the Windstream case, with state commissioners looking at charging the company more than $12 million for the alleged overpayments plus interest and penalties.
The problem isn’t with this particular company, but the USF in general. Originally designed decades ago, when land-line telephones were cutting edge technology, to ensure that even folks in the most remote portions of the state have telephone access. Phone customers are required to pay the fee, which is theoretically used to provide service in hard-to-reach areas and for customers with other challenging situations.
In reality, the USF has become little more than a cash-cow for telephone companies needing to shore up their bottom-line. The funds are disbursed with almost no accountability, and the telephone companies need only turn in a one-page form that contains no background information and no proof of having actually rendered service. Not a bad day: fill out a form, and get millions in taxpayer cash without so much as a pesky question.
The telecommunications business is vastly different today than it was just a decade ago – and almost unrecognizable from the sector as recently as the 1970s. Increasing numbers of families don’t even have a land-line, preferring the ease of cell phones, while others use voice-over-internet services, satellite phones, and cable-lines to make the home phone ring.
It’s abundantly clear that the telecom business has changed, but the USF remains stuck in telephony’s dark ages.
In the Windstream case, it is alleged that the company was “double-dipping” by getting monies from both the federal and state USF pots – never mind that the money all comes from the phone customers pocket. When government gives corporations unfettered access to the taxpayers’ wallets, in the form of mandated fees, without any true oversight or accountability, we’re just asking for fraud and abuse.
Obviously cases of overt mis-payment and fraud must be pursued, but for the health of the state’s economy, and the good of Texas’ taxpayers, lawmakers should seek to reform the USF. Heck, it might even be time just to hang-up on it.
Michael Quinn Sullivan
Texans for Fiscal Responsibility
www.EmpowerTexans.com
Texas Primary
I am a former Texan (of 54 years!) now residing in a small New Hampshire town where we are privileged to get an up close, personal view of the Presidential candidates. I wanted to let people in Texas hear what we saw happening in New Hampshire this past year.
Barack Obama came to New Hampshire a virtual unknown. He worked tirelessly to explain who he is in small and large gatherings, and he took our questions and also articulated what the change we must all work together for would look like. Since this is such a small state, we got to know him very well, and that is what I want to tell my former, fellow Texans. Obama knows how to listen, work with others, and end the deadlock on big issues that have kept this country from moving forward in positive ways. As President, Obama will continue to involve us all, and isn't that the way it should be?
Jane Hoffman
Rye, NH
Texas Beware
Character matters in the selection of a President!
This election is extremely important for the two political parties to pick the right nominee to lead this great country. The Republicans are on the right track in picking Senator John McCain as their nominee, while the Democrats seem to teeter on the brink of selecting a candidate of questionable character and judgment.
Barack Obama’s past drug use is a well known fact, however, tough questions have never been raised as to “when was the last time he used drugs?” and “has he ever sold drugs?” Some might say this is but a youthful indiscretion. Can this explain his recent failure to pay his 15 parking tickets while a US Senator until he announced his candidacy for president? This was certainly no youthful indiscretion. Does Mr. Obama think he is above the law?
Mr. Obama’s relationship with indicted businessman “Tony” Rezko is another example of questionable judgment when he accepted Mr. Rezko’s sweetheart land deal while Mr. Rezko was the subject of an FBI corruption investigation. Mr. Obama also received hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign donations from Mr. Rezko during this time. Mr. Rezko is now awaiting trial on March 3, 2008 on charges of fraud, money laundering and extortion.
Mr. Obama’s past and current behavior reveals another side of a man whom many think is a different politician, but quite to the contrary he has shown a consistent pattern and willingness to bend the rules and sometime break the law as long as he can get away with it. This certainly calls into question Mr. Obama’s character and fitness for the highest office in the land. Democratic voters need to think deep and hard as to whether Mr. Obama has the right character to be their nominee, notwithstanding his oratorical gift and smooth talk.
Connie Nguyen
Burbank, California
America Needs Barack
On Tuesday March 4th Texas will hold presidential primary elections. Because Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama has risen so far, so fast many voters are not as familiar with his background as they would like to be.
In his books Barack Obama has told the story of the family into which he was born, about a father from Kenya whom he barely knew, who left when Barack was age 2, and about his white American mother from Kansas who along with his father was a college student at the University of Hawaii in Honolulu. By age 6 young Barack was already living in Jakarta with his mother and his Indonesian step father before moving back to Hawaii at age 10 to be raised by his maternal grandparents when his mother and her second husband divorced. His "birthright," says Barack Obama, was that he was loved and received a good education.
Over the years Barack Obama had bonding experiences with white and black relatives and with Asian family members amidst an understandable struggle to find his own identity. Through it all he developed a keen ability to understand and to resonate with people of various ethnic backgrounds. Barack Obama worked his way through the racial complexities into which he was born to graduate Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law School and become president of the Harvard Law Review. He worked as a community organizer, a lecturer, and a civil rights attorney prior to serving in the Illinois State Senate from 1997-2004 which ended with his 70% landslide election victory to the US Senate in 2004.
On a personal level Barack Obama has had 46 years of experience in understanding how perceptions of ethnicity and judgments about race can divide people, and he is uniquely qualified and committed to develop a sense of unity and common purpose in America and its people. He has the background, the communication skills and the intelligence necessary to reintroduce the United States of America to the rest of the world. As President of the United States he would appropriately symbolize our great and powerful country with its two simple yet profound ideals of personal freedom and equality of opportunity.
In 1963 when Obama was just 2 years old Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his famous "I have a dream" speech on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C. that included the familiar phrase of "not being judged by the color of one's skin but by the content of one's character." That speech, of course, helped prompt passage of the 1964 US Civil rights Act and the next year, King was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. If the people of America elect Barack Obama their 44th President in November of this year King's dream will have become much more than just a dream.
Some have said that Barack Obama's opposition to America initiating the Iraq war is a "fairytale" and that his position on the war has been "inconsistent." But on October 2, 2002 at the Federal Plaza in Chicago Senator Barack Obama, then an Illinois state senator, delivered these remarks:
"I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil.
I Don't Oppose All Wars
I don't oppose all wars. My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil. I don't oppose all wars. After September 11, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again.
Opposed to Dumb, Rash Wars I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne. What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income, to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.
On Saddam Hussein
Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power…. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him. But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors…and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars. So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president.
You Want a Fight, President Bush?
You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure that…we vigorously enforce a nonproliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil. Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair."
Barack Obama delivered his powerful speech at the Federal Plaza in Chicago October 2, 2002 against the US beginning war in Iraq while later that same month Hillary Clinton voted for the authorization to begin US military action in Iraq. Once US troops were actually in Iraq and fighting a war, of course, it would be irresponsible for Obama to be against funding the troops. The key is that Barack Obama had the judgment to see the dumbness of the war in October 2002 and had the courage to clearly say so. Hillary Clinton did not and voted for funds authorizing the start the Iraq War. Judgment and courage are part of Barack Obama's character, and so is a belief in a united America, in its people and in its future.
The tactic of trying to characterize Obama's position against the war as "a fairy tale" is typical of some politicians who will say and do virtually anything to discredit their opponent in attempting to get themselves elected and is a perfect example of why America so deeply yearns for the enormous breath of fresh air Barack Obama brings to politics and can bring to the highest elective office in our great country.
Barack Obama's opponent insist that he is too young and inexperienced to be President of the United States, seemingly unaware of the fact that Theodore Roosevelt became America's President at age 42, JFK at 43, and Bill Clinton at 46. On January 20, 2009 when our next president is sworn in Barack Obama will be 47 years old.
Back in the 1960 Democratic primary election Senator John Kennedy was also told he was too young and inexperienced to become president, then by such notable members of the "old guard" as Eleanor Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Adlai Stevenson, and Lyndon Johnson. Kennedy was told to wait his turn! But, of course JFK won the 1960 Democratic primary and went on to defeat Richard Nixon in the general election despite Nixon's protest that "Kennedy is too young and inexperienced to be President." It wasn't true then about John F. Kennedy and it isn't true now about Barack Obama.
Senator Obama's opponent claims to have had "35 years of experience," but most of that was not as an elected official but rather as the wife of the Governor of Arkansas and as wife of the President of the United States. Actually she has had 7 years experience as a US Senator from her adopted state of New York.
Barack Obama served 8 years in the Illinois State Senate and was elected to the US Senate in 2004 for a total of 11 years experience as an elected official responsible to voters.
Senator Obama has been in Washington D.C. long enough to know what needs to be changed, and unlike his opponent he has already started doing some changing by refusing to accept money from lobbyists and political action committees. He is proving that being beholden to such money peddlers is not necessary. He raises money for his campaign directly from the people to whom he is accountable, people like you and me.
America needs Barack Obama and America needs him now!
Robert Westafer
Clinton v. Obama
Congratulations to Obama on his string of wins! But can he translate his rhetoric into results? Does anyone seriously believe that the followers of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter are suddenly going to fall in love with moveon.org just because Obama has become President? Thanks to President Bush, ordinary Americans have become professional haters. The lion and the lamb will lay down before the polarized Americans can come together.
Things are so messed up after 8 years of the current administration, the next President may have to go straight from the Inauguration to his/her desk in the Oval Office to start fixing things. There will be no time even to wipe the grin off the President's face.
Hillary Clinton and John McCain have the experience, are pragmatic and aware of their limitations; are battle-tested and trained in the school of political adversity; and have the maturity to deal with national and global problems without extended probationary period. Obama will most likely lead us to lala land.
I hope Texans and Ohioans exercise their choice with care and do not get carried away by Obama-fever.
Padma Rajan
Silver Spring, MD
We Have To Know More
The American public deserve to know more background on Barack Hussein Obama.
1) FACT. Barack was brought up as a Muslim and has a Muslim background. He has since become a Christian.
My understanding is, that as we speak, Barack Hussein Obama, has a brother, Obango, or an uncle, that is a practicing RADICAL MUSLIM. Do we not have a right to an explanation?
We have a right to some discussion. There was discussion with Romney being Mormon.
2) FACT. His religious affiliation specifically states they have a non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO AFRICA.
If you want to worship a different God, that is fine, but your allegiance should be to the United States of America, if you want to be our President. Can we not question, who is your spiritual advisor(s)? Please read the church website regarding Barack's religious affiliation which can be verified on his senate website and both links are attached.
Here are a couple of quotes from the church website. "We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. "
ITEM 4 OF THEIR 10 POINT VISION:
A congregation with a non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO AFRICA.
http://obama.senate.gov/about/ - Senate Website to verify his church affiliation
http://www.tucc.org/about.htm - The church stated in his Senate Website The AMERICAN public have a right to know Barack's background and affiliation. The AMERICAN people have a right for Barack to be scrutinized by the media just as the other candidates are. We need to be informed on who is trying to run our country.
We have the right to some discussion, explanation and accountability.
Tina Talamini
Burleson, Texas
One Candidate
One candidate in this presidential race has consistently supported driver's licenses for undocumented immigrants, even when it was not popular to do so. One candidate seeks to vastly increase the number
of legal immigrants to fit the real needs of U.S. employers, in order to keep Latino families together, and to ensure undocumented workers' rights. One candidate has been endorsed by prominent immigration law professors and experts including Jerry Kang of UCLA and Bill Ong Hing of UC Davis, which makes sense, because this same candidate has won
praise from top experts for his anti-poverty, technology, and health care plans as well.
One candidate in this race knows what it means to be a first-generation American. One candidate knows what it means to be
poor in America. One candidate knows what it means to be a minority in America.
This is the same candidate who won praise from Senator Kennedy for
working as hard as anyone, and much harder than any other Senator now
running for president, on the recent Senate immigration bill. This same candidate now cosponsors the DREAM Act to allow undocumented students to attend college in the US and has committed to making its
passage a priority when he's president. This same candidate won the support of Latinos in his home state by working tirelessly for years to protect their economic interests. He is not the black voter's advocate, he is not the white voter's advocate, and he is certainly not the advocate of corporate America--he is the one candidate never
to have served a corporation, the one candidate who refuses to take funding from lobbyists. The polls repeatedly show that he's the one candidate who can beat McCain in November. And the facts repeatedly show that he is the one candidate with the experience, the character, the record, the skills, and the solutions strong enough to give real hope.
Barack Obama is the one.
Jason Vieyra-Preston
Junction City, Kansas
Mike Huckabee Was Right: God Is A Republican
Why else would Democratic leaders be agonizing over their party rules at a time they should be shining up their resumes for Cabinet posts and ambassadorships?
This is their year. Even the Republican Weekly Standard concedes: “Democratic primary turnout has doubled from 2004, reflecting a level of enthusiasm among Democrats that hasn’t been seen for decades.”
Democrats have winnowed their impressive field of Presidential candidates to a Super Two. Equally important, polls show that 7 of 10 voters like them both.
By contrast, Republicans have made their choice and their base is furious about it. Right-wing ranters Rush Limbaugh and Anne Coulter can’t stand John McCain and vow to keep Huckabee in the race whether he likes it or not.
It is fairly clear that only the Democrats can save the GOP. Who knew? Their party reforms go back several decades, but didn’t create any excitement until this year.
Here is one example: Democrats are super-sensitive to diverse constituencies in the party and years ago came up with the concept of “proportional representation”. The GOP with their “winner take all” rules get a quick nominee while Democrats have a drawn-out process that strains party unity. Worse, it is unlikely either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton will win enough votes for the nomination. That is where it gets sticky for a party famous for its ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory:
The eventual winner may be decided not by ordinary voters but by a group of 796 party insiders known as “super delegates”. Some party leaders fear that could be a problem.
Adding to the Democratic angst is the continuing fight over Michigan and Florida where state legislatures flouted party rules and in the end these changes disenfranchised their voters. Florida is no surprise. When do Democrats ever hold an election without a flap over Florida? This one doesn’t even involve Katharine Harris or the Supreme Court. But Democrats had no choice, the legislature jumped the gun on the election calendar.
While the candidates agreed not to campaign in the two states (a moot point when voters everywhere view near-weekly nationally televised debates and the 24/7 cable networks play in both Michigan and Florida), 2.3 million Democrats went to the polls and cast their ballots and expect them to be counted, a sentiment shared by the Clinton camp since she won both.
What is surprising is a media firestorm over super-delegates that fuels fear and anger among Democrats, and much needed solace and comic delight for Republicans. Even the brother of super-delegate Rahm Emanuel wrote an angry blog declaring “I don’t trust him and his fellow super-delegates to decide for me.”
What is the big deal? Like proportional representation, super delegates go back almost 40 years—to George McGovern’s devastating defeat in 1972. The party felt the nominating process was out of sync and needed adult supervision, so they created super delegates. What was then party reform is now being called a return to back-room deals.
All the candidates knew the moment they declared that there would be a block of super delegates. Their job is to win them over. Two super candidates must now woo super delegates. That’s what candidates do. Super delegates aren’t pledged-- they can change with the polls and election results. Recall in 2004 when Howard Dean saw his super delegates jump ship by the score after his third-place finish in Iowa?
One other thing to consider: A lifetime of political insiderdom doesn’t guarantee political smarts. There is one thing all these Democrats--the party leaders in Michigan and Florida who fast-forwarded the election calendar, and the DNC party elders who chastised them—have in common. They are all super delegates.
Victor Kamber
Vote For Hillary
In the current race for the Democratic nomination, the choice is not between the experienced candidate (Hillary) and the candidate of change (Obama). Texans are too savvy to believe that it's really that simple. While Hillary has the most experience, she also captures change and hope in her candidacy. Obama, who inspires hope and change also has some experience.
The real choice is not "all or nothing" but comes down which candidacy has the best package overall. That answer is pretty clear: Hillary Clinton.
While not the most stylish candidate, Hillary's grasp of of complicated policy--from immigration to the national economy--makes her better positioned to lead the United States. Though the rhetoric of "change" echoed by the Obama camp is intriguing and indeed inspiring, it is because of Hillary's experience as US Senator, former first lady, and advocate of children that makes her more capable of actually bringing change. Hillary's plan to legalize immigrants in a careful way, her desire to bring universal health care to thousands of uninsured Texans, and her substantive plans for reviving the economy illustrate her strengths over Obama.
Rather than talking about change and hope, Hillary's entire career has been about actually bringing change and improving the lives of others. She has proven these strengths debate after debate, and anyone who has studied her positions and accomplishments knows that when it comes to policy and leadership, she is in a league of her own.
On March 4, Texans are smart enough to know that the choice is not between change and experience. Rather, Texans are realizing that by voting for Hillary, they are voting for the strongest, most experienced candidate to lead our great country. Style over substance hasn't worked the last eight years under the Bush Administration, and Texans know the stakes are too high to gamble with America.
Ken Seifert
Former resident of Dallas and Houston
Rockville, MD
Dawning Of A new Age
The candidacy of Barack Obama has excited a whole new generation of previously disinterested young Americans. And though this large and swelling involvement of youth should set Democratic Party members singing “Happy Days Are Here Again, a few in the ranks of the regular and older members seem averse to joining the movement and instead expect these young people to temper their idealism and switch allegiance to a candidate of their elders’ choosing.
This wave of change is not going to happen if the incipient enthusiasm of these young people is squelched; the bulk of the newly involved will drift into the dead center of an apathetic public that has little faith in any political party’s capacity to set this nation on a path that bodes a more promising and inclusive future for working and middle class, and destitute Americans.
Before any of us good old Democrats let this happen, best we remember John F. Kennedy’s inaugural charge to the American people of his time: “Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans.”
Sam Osborne
West Branch, IA
Wait For The right Women
According to the demographics, I should be voting for Hillary Clinton: I'm a white, 60-year-old, highly educated woman from the Northeast. But I'm supporting Barack Obama. I've waited all my life for a viable woman candidate for the presidency, but this is not the right woman. I want a woman of the highest ability and virtue, who would serve as a glorious role model to all young women. Hillary Clinton is not that woman.
She rode into power with her husband, and together they've acquired a long and seriously flawed history of self-serving and secretive financial and political dealings. The most cursory research will prove that true. (For starters, why will she not release her tax returns – as Obama has done – unless she wins the nomination? What has she got to hide?) She started out her political life supporting the racist Barry Goldwater – what does that mean about her values and judgment? She is as comfortable with deception and trickery as George Bush. When I hear woman saying, "Oh, but that's how you get things done in Washington," I literally cringe.
I am passionately supporting Barack Obama. He can beat the Republicans; Clinton cannot. Obama has attracted Independents and even Republicans to his camp, and in a general election they would vote for him, but not for Clinton. Clinton voted for the war, and has never apologized for it. Obama has spoken out against it from the beginning. Obama brings us hope—and not just that. Take a serious look at his ideas and experience. Take a look at his website -- it's all there.
Please, I beg of you, Sisters young and old: wait for the right woman. Then we can be proud.
Diane Wald
Dedham, MA
Editor's Note: We encourage you to send in your Letters
to the Editor, but please remember to give your name
and town. `Anonymous' letters will no longer be
accepted. Direct confidential questions by calling (936) 539-2200 or e-mail editor@thebulletin.com.
LETTERS FROM JANUARY 2007
LETTERS FROM DECEMBER 2007
LETTERS FROM NOVEMBER 2007
LETTERS FROM OCTOBER 2007
LETTERS FROM SEPTEMBER 2007
LETTERS FROM AUGUST 2007
LETTERS FROM JULY 2007
LETTERS FROM JUNE 2007
LETTERS FROM MAY 2007
LETTERS FROM APRIL 2007
LETTERS FROM MARCH 2007
LETTERS FROM FEBRUARY 2007
LETTERS FROM JANUARY 2007
LETTERS FROM DECEMBER 2006
LETTERS FROM NOVEMBER 2006
LETTERS FROM OCTOBER 2006
LETTERS FROM SEPTEMBER 2006
LETTERS FROM AUGUST 2006
LETTERS FROM JULY 2006
LETTERS FROM JUNE 2006
LETTERS FROM MAY 2006
LETTERS FROM APRIL 2006
LETTERS FROM MARCH 2006
LETTERS FROM FEBRUARY 2006
LETTERS FROM JANUARY 2006
LETTERS FROM DECEMBER 2005
LETTERS FROM NOVEMBER 2005
LETTERS FROM OCTOBER 2005
LETTERS FROM SEPTEMBER 2005
LETTERS FROM AUGUST 2005
LETTERS FROM JULY 2005
LETTERS FROM JUNE 2005
LETTERS FROM MAY 2005
LETTERS FROM APRIL 2005
LETTERS FROM MARCH 2005
LETTERS FROM FEBRUARY 2005
LETTERS FROM JANUARY 2005
LETTERS FROM DECEMBER 2004
LETTERS FROM NOVEMBER 2004
LETTERS FROM OCTOBER 2004
LETTERS FROM SEPTEMBER 2004
LETTERS FROM AUGUST 2004
LETTERS FROM JULY 2004
LETTERS FROM JUNE 2004
LETTERS FROM MAY 2004
LETTERS FROM APRIL 2004
LETTERS FROM MARCH 2004
LETTERS FROM FEBRUARY 2004
LETTERS FROM JANUARY 2004
|
|
|
|
|