Mar
01
2011

Letters to the Editor

Keep Hitting on ‘Pulling a Clinton’

Just received the January issue. Very relevant. I hope you will keep hitting the media on their desire to have Obama “pull a Clinton.” After our “liberal” president knuckled under to the GOP on taxes, giving them almost all they wanted, the media is claiming that Obama won the victory! I suspect the establishment is afraid that Tea Partiers will upset the apple cart, and are now trying to engineer an Obama victory with both houses Republican for 2012. That would keep “triangulation” going.

Also, practically no one in the media has pointed out one motivation for reducing the Social Security payroll tax by 2 percent: This will mean that the Social Security trust fund will get that much less. That, of course, is a useful plank in the plot to end Social Security, or at least make it necessary to lower benefits and increase the retirement age. Hasn’t anyone seen the Machiavellian reasoning there? Keep exposing them.

Peter B. Denison

Somerset, Mass.

MoveOn’s Origins

The SoundBites description (1/11) of MoveOn.org as “activists who coalesced around opposing the war in Iraq” misremembers history, because it was the impeachment of Bill Clinton which was the impetus for the formation of MoveOn, not the invasion of Iraq. It was the ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) Coalition (which actually formed days after the invasion of Afghanistan to oppose that war), along with the United for Peace & Justice (which formed in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq), who lead the opposition to the war in Iraq.

Steven Patt

Cupertino, Calif.

Editor’s note: When our SoundBite referred to “Bush-era MoveOn activists and ‘netroots’ bloggers” as “activists who coalesced around opposing the war in Iraq,” our object was to describe whom the New York Times (10/31/10) was referring to in the article we were critiquing. The Times piece called them “self-described progressive activists...devoted to ending...George W. Bush’s war in Iraq”; a MoveOn organizer was the first example offered.

Media Missing McCain Scrutiny

The media, so far, has not called on Sen. John McCain to explain his “special” connection to our troops. Why is he the only senator who has heard from thousands of our troops that repealing the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” law will not be good for their morale? Why was he the only one during the 2008 presidential debate to claim that commanders in Iraq “are not in favor of drawing down the troops and they wanted to stay there and win the war”? Any bets that he will say something similar in nature when President Obama decides to draw down our troops from Afghanistan? Why are media not curious to find out if the senator does have a direct line to the troops or is it just political pandering?

G.M. Chandu

Flushing, N.Y.

An Educational Reform

As a new subscriber, I was surprised to read Robert Leski’s comments in the November issue which he spends space decrying the feeble efforts of educational reform, stating it needed “structural” change, which he gave no detail of except to say it would take more than a paragraph to explain why experts are looking in the wrong place. May I submit the thought that if a child can’t learn the way we teach him, we had better teach him the way he learns.

I might add, I feel public TV and radio is still viable in those communities where there is less of a commercial presence and pressure.

Thanks for being where you are.

Al Greenberg

West Palm Beach, Fla.