-
Like Sarah Palin, Early Feminists Were Pro-Life
Tweet Share on Facebook December 27, 2010 Comment (17)Jamie Stiehm’s “Sarah Palin Is No Friend of Women in Politics” isn’t the first time feminist history has been rewritten to fit the abortion-centered model, but it is one of the more egregious instances of ignoring current events. Her recent opinion cites the 2010 election results as evidence of the alleged disservice Sarah Palin and pro-life groups like the Susan B. Anthony List (SBA List) have done women by decreasing the overall number of women taking office in 2011.
-
Reactions to Obama and GOP Tax-Cut Deal
Tweet Share on Facebook December 21, 2010 Comment (1)Who would have thought that our first black president could be brought down by Democrats? Unless there is a real attitude adjustment in the Democratic Party before 2012—a greater respect for the president’s ability to reach compromises with very hostile adversaries—Obama’s own party will probably prevent him from getting a second term. If President Obama wanted to accomplish anything, he had to compromise. It seems that many Democrats would rather have a political civil war that paralyzes the nation than compromise with [Rep. John] Boehner and [Sen. Mitch] McConnell. Obama is right to say no to those rigid ideologues [who refuse to] compromise and achieve some small success. Maybe the difference between victory and survival should be explained to the purists.
MICHAEL GORMAN Whitestone, N.Y.
-
Readers Weigh in: Should Democrats Be More Progressive?
Tweet Share on Facebook December 6, 2010 CommentStephanie Taylor argued that President Obama and the Democrats must be more boldly progressive; Rep. Jim Matheson argued that the path back to victory lies in the political center. Here's a sample of reader reaction:
I tend to agree with the observations of Rep. Jim Matheson. I see his presentation as realistic and as one which would probably stand up fairly well to a fact audit. I tend to see Stephanie Taylor as out of touch with reality—as are Nancy Pelosi and President Obama. Loss of moderate politicians in this last election is a disaster.
DONALD GROTH Yakima, Wash.
Democrats lost because they went too far with the big-government, statist, progressive agenda; not the other way around. The American people gave the [Democrats] a chance in 2006 to make things better. They did not. So they got voted out of office. Now the Republicans have a chance. If they fail also, they'll also get voted out. Reading anything more into it is just spin.
STEVEN TAYLOR Denison, Texas
Being more boldly progressive will not change a thing as long as there are so many in the electorate who think everything from the left is a new incursion on liberties, more big government, more tax-and-spend, more regulation of business, and more liberalization of moral standards. The right has, through massively successful manipulation of public opinion, turned "liberalism" into a dirty word. The battle won't be won by the left without far better marketing and public relations preceding every attempt at change. Howard Dean and Barack Obama knew this, but ever since Obama's victory in 2008, all tactics to win the hearts and minds of the electorate have been abandoned in favor of abrupt policy change and the creation of programs the right has had no problem shooting down. The irony is that people want healthcare reform, want Social Security and Medicare preserved, want compassionate government, and want an end to wars and the immense expense involved in them. Fooling enough of the people enough of the time, though, has worked to make them think otherwise, and we're all losers as a result.
RON SMITH Providence, Utah
Blue Dog Democrats have been the undoing of the Democratic Party. Why did so many of them lose in November? People didn't bother to go out and vote for them because they felt that they are DINOs [Democrats In Name Only]. Stop trying to appease the party of no.
ROGER CRAWFORD Stony Run, Pa.
I've heard enough about how this election proves that the Democrats need to move more to the right. If we could just get our president and the Democratic Party (including the Blue Dogs who write such miserable op-eds) to hear us, the members of the Democratic Party, they may realize that they've been taken out behind the woodshed for a whipping by their own members. Our party has a much better history than this toothless aberration that is in place in the White House and the Blue Dog Congress. We're trying to change that. Party pols need to get their collective heads out of the sand.
LINDA WOODWARD Puyallup, Wash.
The so-called center—Blue Dogs included—is now so far to the right that the truly reactionary pre-Teddy Roosevelt politics of the far-right radicals seem reasonable (and that's freakin' scary). This isn't amnesia on the part of the "informed" right. They want to go back to when big money ruled—indeed we're already there—and the little folks kept their mouths shut and did as they were told.
Richard Lehman Johnstown, Pa.
Matheson makes no sense at all. If moderates helped Obama win, where were they in 2010 when Blue Dogs got swept out to sea? If most progressives kept their seats, why did Blue Dogs lose? Can the message be any clearer? It's beyond me how any straight-faced Democrat can possibly still push for a Blue Dog approach.
TOBI DRAGERT Los Angeles
-
Federal Budget Cuts and the Future of U.S. News
Tweet Share on Facebook December 2, 2010 CommentPrime Cuts
"So what would you cut?" [Editor's Note, November 12] Given that we really don't want our country to go bankrupt, the best way to do this is the same as how you move to a smaller house. You don't agonize over letting go of each item, but instead tag the stuff you must take with you, and leave the rest behind. Do we really not realize how serious our financial situation is?
SUSAN STEPHENS Midland, Mich.
The cuts need to be made across the board including—especially—the entitlement programs. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are killing us. Americans need to be weaned off of government programs by providing people incentives to save for their own welfare.
CHRISTOPHER ZIMMERMAN Whetstone, Ariz.
The Future of U.S. News
I look forward to the arrival of my U.S. News Weekly [Editor's Note, November 19]. In fact, my diminishing print version was getting less and less of my attention. I enjoy the opinions in the two attached podcasts. I usually seek balance in weekly current events watching and reading. Hopefully U.S. News Weekly will report both sides of issues. I prefer to make up my own mind rather than listen to a continuing barrage of opinionated pundits, disguised as newscasters, on radio and TV.
LAURENCE WITTIG Phoenix
I have been a U.S. News subscriber for decades, but I won't continue after the print edition ceases. I spend a good deal of time in front of my computers and it is not relaxing. When I want to read a magazine, I prefer to do it in my leather chair or bed. This is the first time I have read the online edition, ever. I am not enjoying it.
ALAN WINTERS Bellaire, Texas
As a U.S. News subscriber for decades, I enjoy the weekly. Mixing sections of unbiased news with writer opinions makes for an enjoyable read. However, keep it short—about its present size—as one doesn't want to sit for hours in front of a computer.
JERRY PASEK Rancho Murieta, Calif.
As someone who has subscribed to U.S. News & World Report for almost 40 years, I was very disappointed by the demise of the weekly print edition, and I'm going to miss the monthly print edition, too. And I'm not a Luddite. I am a distinguished member of the technical staff at a major telecom company, and I've been a direct participant in the development of the standards that have supported the evolution of cable and telco Internet delivery. I've been an early adopter of technologies like smartphones. That said, I still like holding a newsmagazine and, for that matter, my daily newspaper.
BOB STEIN Coopersburg, Pa.
Things I like: interactive graphs, video and audio supplements. This is a multimedia format; give us more of it. I don't peruse your journal for the written content alone. Things I miss: articles on science and health news, something other than politics. I miss the color. Pictures are intriguing and help add emotion and art and zip to the mundane. Things I would change: less emphasis on all things political. I can only absorb so much of Washington's missteps before I lose interest.
DONNA ALDER Rochester, N.Y.
I strongly preferred the print version and very much looked forward to having something I could hold in my hand and take anywhere to read without worrying about Internet access. It used to be I could share the magazine with my wife and kids, but now that is not possible (or at least not very convenient). We are getting much less value out of it.
JOHN KEREKES Pittsford, N.Y.
Drop the weekly presidential report card. No president deserves to be treated that way: like some schoolchild bringing home weekly grade reports. We have also been polled and given poll results until we are numb (or dumb).
JOHN GRUMBLES West Chester, Ohio
As a longtime subscriber to U.S. News, I was upset with the change from a weekly magazine to a monthly publication combined with the weekly digital version. But, bravo! I thought I would miss the ability to sit back and enjoy my print version; that has not been the case. U.S. News Weekly is something I look forward to each Friday as it arrives on my laptop. As a 61-year-old high school teacher, your new format has helped me see the merits of the digital age and delights my students when we discuss issues in my economics classes pulled from the weekly digital.
STUART SIMS San Clemente, Calif.
Yes, I carry a BlackBerry, another cellphone, and work almost exclusively on a laptop away from the office . . . but there is something special (for me) in disconnecting from all of that, sitting in a comfortable chair, and reading something on paper. If you could consolidate all of your weekly reporting into one place (like the Weekly), which contains a variety of topics and in-depth information, that would add immeasurable value to my subscription. Your current Weekly seems to concentrate too much on politics and not enough on other issues.
STEVEN DRAGESET Mount Shasta, Calif.
I like the digital Weekly and its format. But I wish the articles would cover more world news and less on Washington, as the print edition did. After all, "world report" is still part of your name, and it's beginning to seem like a bit of a misnomer. Your magazine was a great way to keep up with international affairs. I have yet to find a good print magazine to fill that void.
THOMAS LERCZAK Havana, Ill.
I want a weekly newsmagazine, and I'll pay for it. Yes, I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore.
MIKE THORNTON Memphis
I'm a subscriber to the digital Weekly. I love it. I love being able to get current news quickly. I won't be disappointed to see the print version go away. Personally, I don't read it. Print has really gone the way of the dinosaur with respect to news.
DIANA DILL Pittsburgh
I miss the old weekly newsmags—I am a reader without a laptop. I enjoy cramming things into my bag to read whenever I have a moment. That being said, I have enjoyed the weekly U.S. News via E-mail—less content, but nice. However, if I am busy, I often don't have time to read everything, because I am not able to sit at my computer and don't want to print out every edition—isn't that why you're digital?
MARSHA WEINER Savannah, Ga.
-
The 2010 Republican Wave and Obama's Flagging Approval
Tweet Share on Facebook November 15, 2010 CommentWhat the GOP Wave Means
I’ve always agreed somewhat with each party’s ideas but never fully with either [“GOP Wave Sweeps Capitol Hill,” November 5]. Perhaps now we will get some truly meaningful legislation out of Washington. This bitter feud between Democrats and Republicans should end. A more understanding tone should prevail. The radicals, on both sides, will be tempered by the middle-of-the-road predominance. That should enable more compromises.
[Check out our editorial cartoons on the Democrats.]
FRED BEHR Whitesboro, N.Y.
One unfortunate byproduct of the Republican Revolution of 2010 is that if left to Congress, the president’s promise to end the bizarre and anachronistic “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy is likely to be broken. Republicans, and particularly those on the far right, have found that it plays well with their supporters to continue treating homosexuals as lepers. Their view is reinforced by a number of prominent members of the military who tell us that “troop morale” will be negatively impacted by the presence of those whose sexuality is not considered to be the norm. What a tragedy that our nation refuses to join the enlightened countries of the world in recognizing that homosexuality is not a factor that renders one incompatible with military service.
[Read more about the military and national security.]
OREN SPIEGLER Upper St. Clair, Pa.
As a lifelong Republican political activist, I have been asked several times about my reaction to the recent apparent Republican election victory. I usually respond with an example from when I worked in the real estate business. We experienced many ups and downs and, naturally, we overinvested during the boom and consequently lost big during the bust. A common joke was that we used to pray: “Lord, if you give me just one more real estate cycle, I promise that I won’t screw it up this time.” Republicans have been given one more chance.
[Check out our editorial cartoons on the GOP.]
ROY MILLER Phoenix
To Deal or Not to Deal?
Jobs and taxes, taxes and jobs will be the focus of the lame-duck Congress [Editor’s Note, November 5]. Since the GOP is not yet in charge, they will have to agree to something or risk looking foolish right after the new session begins. Democrats should paint the president’s $250,000 limit as hard on trial lawyers, since they are supposedly a favored constituency.
STEVE SHERMAN Mountain View, Calif.
Lost Love for Obama
Obama doesn’t get it. Americans have spoken [“Assessing the Democrats’ Election Disaster,” November 5]. Obama will never accept that his agenda is not acceptable and he’s going to be a one-term president. Healthcare will be overturned, and we took away the checkbook. The arrogance of the Democrats with their backroom deals is over. These two years have been pure hell. As a Democrat, the lesson I learned is never again to give my vote to them. If you believe Obama and the Dems will change, forget it.
[Check out our editorial cartoons on healthcare.]
LEE HAUSER Sherman Oaks, Calif.
Obama has divided us, calling those who disagree with him enemies. He has squandered almost a trillion dollars on goodies for public employee unions, auto companies, and Wall Street, while failing to create the needed jobs. He passed an unintelligible healthcare bill by bribing senators and arm-twisting representatives, all the while misrepresenting the financial impact on the general public. Obama has lost all credibility—whatever he has to say is suspect despite the attempts of the mainstream (what stream is it, anyway?) media to cover up the lies and incompetence.
SUE MASIELLO Solebury, Pa.
-
The Democrat-GOP Blame Game and Jon Stewart's 'Sanity'
Tweet Share on Facebook November 5, 2010 Comment (1)‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’
I served in the Army through Desert Shield / Desert Storm [“Injunction Ups Ante on Gays in Military,” October 15]. I don’t have an issue with gays at all; in fact, I have had quite a few gay friends over the years. [But] the units I’ve served in were all supply—and thus coed. So we had to have separate showers and bathrooms in the field and at home for males and females. That being said, how are you going to house and shower gay soldiers stationed with straight soldiers?
PAUL SKINNER Hanceville, Ala.
The Partisan Fight
Stop with the blame game. Every time Democrats talk about the economy, they state that they have saved us from a second Depression. They have no facts to back up that statement; it is pure conjecture. It is so disingenuous. They blame everything on George Bush, yet it was the Democrats who were in charge of passing legislation.
JEFFREY GREEN Eden Prairie, Minn.
Both the Democrats and Republicans deserve credit for the destruction of our great nation. They have worked hand-in-hand to achieve this. And both blame the other. Meanwhile, the public is losing their nation, their economy, and their way of life. It is time to rid ourselves of politics-as-usual and bring back integrity. But, realistically, what do you think the chances are of achieving this? We are doomed. We have met the enemy and he is us.
JAMES BOWER Redmond, Wash.
I find Republicans confusing. They just never seem happy [“Grudge Matches,” October 15]. Clinton left the presidency with the country’s budget in the black. Bush left the country deeply in debt and on the verge of another Great Depression, yet what do I hear? “They want fiscal moderates and a balanced budget.” So why are they voting Republican again?
[Read the U.S. News op-ed debate: Should a Balanced Budget Be a Top Priority for Congress?]
PATTY PARKER Fairfax, Va.
The Tea Party movement is talking change in more-real terms than the last upstart who tried it—who is now watching his prospects fizzle. Budgetary responsibility is easy to cheer for when we’re seeing unpopular initiatives run up the debt. The government should have cinched the belt rather than thrown money at the problem. I just hope that voters are on board with the price that comes with the gutsy Tea Party recommendations.
[Check out our editorial cartoons on the Tea Party.]
TED CLAYTON Joyce, Wash.
I read a book in 1993 entitled Who Will Tell the People: The Betrayal of American Democracy, by William Greider. Why should anyone vote for either party when they created the problems the country now faces? Both parties are the problem, not the solution.
DAVID SOLO Georgetown, Texas
Jon Stewart and Liberal ‘Sanity’
It’s kind of interesting that comedian Jon Stewart’s “Rally to Restore Sanity” was considered a liberal, pro-Democrat rally [“Looking for the Stewart Bump,” October 29]. Sanity is considered a liberal position? I wonder why that is.
[See photos of the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear.]
MARC PERKEL Gilroy, Calif.
Schlesinger and the GOP
Mr. Schlesinger’s smart aleck remarks [“If the Republicans Take Charge . . . ,” October 15] about anyone who doesn’t suit his liberal mindset will force me to not renew my U.S. News subscription.
STEPHEN CHAPMAN Englewood, Ohio
-
Democrats and Immigration, Mideast Peace, and a GOP Takeover
Tweet Share on Facebook November 2, 2010 CommentDemocrats and Illegal Amnesty
If leftist Democrats like Barbara Boxer and Nancy Pelosi again win control of Congress, they along with liberationist Obama will grant total amnesty to all illegal immigrants, most of whom are Latinos whom Democrats are politically beholden to [“Democrats Practicing Campaign Triage,” October 15]. Pelosi, Boxer, and the Democrat-controlled state legislature made California a “Sanctuary State” and radically changed California two ways: First, the torrent of illegal immigrants in the last three decades has catastrophically overtaxed government, causing devastating public deficits; and second, Latinos will in a couple of decades be the major race in California and Spanish its most spoken language. (President Obama is on record saying, “America’s children should speak Spanish.”) These leftist Democrats will do to the nation what they did to California. [See where Pelosi gets her campaign money.]
[Read more about immigration reform.]
DAVEY TRUMAN Santa Cruz, Calif.
Obama’s Mideast Peace Game
Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu does not realize that the Middle East game has changed [“Negotiating Peace Should Be a Private Process,” October 15]. No American administration and no Arab negotiator has ever made settlements out to be the critical issue. Mutual recognition, the end of hostilities, the borders separating Israel and Palestine, and refugees were the problems to be solved. Barack Obama changed all that. He, like former President Jimmy Carter, sees the Middle East conflict from a distinctly Arab perspective. Obama lavishes praise on the Arabs and misses no opportunity to scold Israel. His philosophy seems to be that if only Israel were more cooperative and did whatever the Arabs wanted, the Arabs would reciprocate. So he has scant praise for Israel unilaterally setting a 10-month construction freeze, while the Palestinians name public places after terrorists. Now Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas threatens to quit peace talks unless the construction freeze is made permanent. The focus of the talks should be to set borders, allowing each side to build on its own territory. One must conclude that, even with a sympathetic American administration backing them, the Arabs are still not interested in allowing a Jewish state to exist.
LEN BENNETT Montreal
A GOP Takeover?
Of course Republicans are going to win the House and maybe even the Senate because America, the greatest country in the world, is racist to its core [Editor’s Note, October 15]. So the majority of white Americans, or the 70 percent majority of Americans (as Bill O’Reilly likes to say), would rather put control back into the hands of Republicans, who over the course of eight years left America in its worst economic shape since the Great Depression. These racist Americans are comfortable with this economic weakness [even] realizing that it makes this great nation extremely vulnerable to nuclear superpowers like Russia, China, and, unfortunately, even India and Pakistan. The power of racism is amazing. It can apparently cause one to be willing to place his own children in harm’s way just to feel more comfortable, or should I say superior?
ELTON McWILLIAMS Houston
[Can the president do anything to change the November outcome?] 1. Spend more time praising America than bashing it. 2. Honor your oath to uphold the Constitution. Stop trying to “revise” it into a progressive document. 3. Renounce the state religion of environmentalism. Green theology has destroyed industry, forced jobs out of the country, kept us dependent on our enemies for energy, increased prices for goods and services, and reduced recreational opportunities for millions. 4. Proclaim that unborn babies are endowed by the Creator with inalienable rights. Further, that these rights are not predicated upon the personal whimsy of irresponsible, selfish parents for the sake of their personal convenience. 5. Cast out party members who dishonor their oath of office—draining the swamp, as it were. 6. Reduce the size and scope of the federal government. Guarantee more autonomy to the states. 7. Support term limits. 8. Renounce pork-barrel politics. 9. Support vouchers, charter schools, and private education. 10. Reduce the size of the kingdom. There simply aren’t enough resources to man the outposts of the realm. And, sadly, it is also so with the Republicans.
RICHARD SCHAEFER Marina del Rey, Calif.
-
Is the Tea Party Good for Republicans?
Tweet Share on Facebook October 25, 2010 CommentRep. Michele Bachmann argued in the October 8 issue that the movement embodies the Spirit of 1776; Boston University professor Thomas Whalen called Tea Partyers arrogant elitists. Your feedback:
[See where Bachmann gets her campaign money.]
While some of the main ideas of the Tea Party do make sense, the problem is the people who are running with its endorsement. Do we really want someone who wears a Nazi uniform to be an elected official in this country? Delaware has a former self-proclaimed witch running for office! So I think the answer is that the Tea Party must be more selective of who it endorses and maybe its candidates would be “electable” not “laughable.”
STEVEN RIBACK Monroe Township, N.J.
We conservatives have been lectured from the liberal and progressive side for years about how stupid we are and how we just don’t understand. And now you are calling us elitist? Your hypocrisy is astounding.
ERIC CLANTON Piedmont, Ala.
More empty rhetoric. In a nutshell, that’s all the Tea Partyers provide: anger, platitudes, religious zealotry, intolerance, and buckets of ignorance—and Michele Bachmann has all of those qualities in spades. What’s interesting is that the only significant parallel in her entire diatribe is that of the Civil War, with the North being a progressive nation of reasonable thinkers and intellectuals and the South being an angry, ignorant mob. Sound familiar?
ALEX AVEDIKIAN Chaska, Minn.
[Thomas Whalen] is correct that the Tea Party people—much like the disaffected who followed Ross Perot a few years back—are elitists because they espouse the view that they, and only they, have the secrets to fix the nation. But drill down to the level of specificity necessary to govern, and what you see is that they have no plan, no new ideas. They just want to turn back the clock and pretend Obama wasn’t elected. They long for the good old days of backward-thinking Texans in the White House. Never mind that Mr. Bush spent us into this near-Depression with wars he could not win and should not have fought. Never mind that Bush took a surplus from Clinton and turned it into the biggest deficit ever. Never mind that the real stimulus and bailout packages were Republican ideas. The Tea Partyers forget this because truth is not what matters, it’s just about feeling good about America again. To them I say, “Grow up."
ANTHONY DeWITT Jefferson City, Mo.
I don’t know if the Tea Party is good for the GOP or not, but both of your commentators had me shaking my head—and in both cases it wasn’t up and down.
NICK RUDAWSKI Exton, Pa.
So [Whalen] thinks he’s right that people who think they’re right are elitists. How silly. Really, he’s just trying to redefine “elitist” to fit his misconception of the Tea Party. Elitists are people who think they know best how to run everyone else’s life because of their place in society or academia, or whatever. The whole point of the Tea Party is to let people run their own lives.
TOM TOZER Chicago
-
Political 'Elites,' Free Speech, and Military Funerals
Tweet Share on Facebook October 18, 2010 CommentAttacking the ‘Elites’ in Politics
In addressing supposed “attacks on elites,” Robert Schlesinger, perhaps intentionally, misses the point [“Lay Off the Attacks on Elites,” October 1]. The problem elites are those who don’t understand everyday Americans and have an I-know-what’s-best-for-everyone belief. Note that one conservative “professorial elite” hero was William Buckley Jr. I had to get out my dictionary every time I heard him speak.
JACK JAMES Vilas, N.C.
Only eggheads who really think have any place in politics.
RICHARD GIBSON Naples, Fla.
The term “egghead” should be met with derision—and logic. Honorable, intelligent people should be respected and elected by us to lead intelligently.
ROBERT GOLDISH Duluth, Minn.
The Limits of Free Speech
While we all enjoy the benefit of the First Amendment, it does not give anyone the right to disrupt the private lives of others [Editor’s Note, October 8]. The demonstration by these church members against the military at a private family funeral infringes on their lives and their right to “pursue happiness.” The pursuit of happiness might apply here, as the family and friends of the slain soldier are looking to ease their pain through private prayer.
STEVEN RIBACK Monroe Township, N.J.
The grieving family should have a right to privacy. I don’t understand why it would be unconstitutional to enforce this privacy when requested.
JACK STONE Plymouth Meeting, Pa.
As awful as it is for protesters to belittle dead soldiers, free speech is free speech. I would think property owners have the right to decide who can or cannot enter their grounds.
JIM BRITT, pastor, Norway, Mich.
Freedom of speech does not mean you can incite a riot. Right to bear arms does not mean you can have a nuke in your bedroom. Freedom of religion does not mean you can put “In God We Trust” on our money, when we do not all agree there is only one god (hmm, maybe it does?). To cover all bases, our motto should be: “If There Is a God, In God(s) We Trust—but We Still Want the Largest Military in the World Because God Does Not Always Answer Our Prayers and We Tend to Piss Off a Lot of People.” These freedoms were intended to protect folks from the government, not from other folks. Also, a corporation is not a folk. Corporations only have the rights given to them by the applicable state charter, which should not include any activity in politics. Can IBM run for president? It is over 35 years old and was born in America.
GEORGE DILL Escondido, Calif.
I don’t know why those horrible funeral protests don’t fall under the category of hate crimes. There are so many other laws about other kinds of harassment—racial, sexual, gender, handicap access, etc.—that it doesn’t seem like a big leap to include these despicable protests.
BOB STEPHAN Pebble Beach, Calif.
Freedom of speech is exactly that. But, like the proverbial yelling of “Fire!” in a crowded theater, when and where one’s right to say anything can be restricted. A fair solution would be for the court to find that funeral protests and rallies can take place, but not within sight or sound of the funeral or family members.
JIM ALSTON New Braunfels, Texas
-
Is Citizens United Hurting American Democracy?
Tweet Share on Facebook October 12, 2010 Comment (2)Michael Waldman of NYU’s Brennan Center for Justice argued against the Supreme Court ruling because it warps policymaking; John Samples of the Cato Institute said it upholds freedom of speech. Your feedback:
The partisan Supreme Court decision on Citizens United clearly favors big business, which has much more money to contribute to political campaigns than any group or citizens on the left. The ploy that the many TV ads we endure are “speech,” rather than aid to campaigns, is just silly. And, unfortunately, we all know that way too many in this country are influenced by anything shouted loud enough and often enough, so it can be expected that the big money will win elections for candidates favoring big business.
[Check out our editorial cartoons on the 2010 campaigns.]
TOM KARASEK Longview, Wash.
The Supreme Court decided correctly. Any group or organization—left, right, or center—has the right of free speech. Period.
RICHARD SCHAEFER Marina del Rey, Calif.
Mr. Samples has just unloaded the biggest crock of gobbledygook I have heard in my 70 years. Since when is a corporation an individual? What about those corporations that are multinationals? Do we want other countries having a vote in our elections? This decision is really not about free speech. It is about corporations being allowed to contribute unimpeded, with no disclosure, to those bought-and-paid-for candidates who will vote the way they would like them to. Why don’t we just hand over our government to the corporations and be done with it?
MARILYN MUELLER Alpharetta, Ga.
As to the wording of the First Amendment, it should be noted that corporations as we know them today did not exist at the time the Constitution was framed. Ergo, it is understandable why our Founding Fathers omitted the word “person” from the First Amendment—there was simply no need to differentiate. Now, let’s take your interpretation of the omission of the word “citizen” to another “logical” conclusion. The amendment also says that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” What this says to me is that we, the people, have a right to petition the government, and, by omission, that the corporation is not granted a right to lobby the government. The Supreme Court justices leave out intent because few of them have ever felt the pulse of the American Revolution, and few remember the blood, sweat, and tears of the framers and early supporters of our Constitution. They are as inhuman as the corporations they defend.
ANGELO JIMENEZ North Bergen, N.J.
Corruption is never good for democracy. If we allow corporations to spend money on campaigns, then what do you think will happen when these politicians get elected? Our tax money won’t be spent on schools or roads, it will be put back into these corporations. This is a democracy. We the people of the United States should have a voice here. This country is supposed to be run for us, not for greedy politicians and big corporations.
RACHAEL MARLIN Manchester, Tenn.
