Here is a letter to the editor of The Nation, a English language newspaper in Bangkok, that I really enjoyed and want to pass on to you.
-----------------
"I probably would have let Eric Bahrt's letter on irrelevancy ["Just who are you calling irrelevant", February 8] go if he hadn't brought up Hillary Clinton. But he did, so I am afraid I must comment.
First of all, mentioning the Democratic presidents of 1932 to 1948 was misleading. Four of those terms were served by Franklin D Roosevelt, the man who led America out of the Depression and started the Social Security programme. The fifth term was Truman, who became an incumbent because Roosevelt died in office. Further, American presidents can no longer serve more than two terms, so that stretch really doesn't mean a thing.
As for irrelevancy, John Kerry was less than irrelevant. He was moot. George Bush was so ripe for the taking that a trained monkey could have beaten him simply by not talking. Kerry's shameless trumpeting of his war record and his "Band of Brothers", not to mention his completely out-of-line mention of Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter so turned off American voters that Bush won by default.
Despite the total lack of a cogent Democratic battle plan, he still got 48 per cent of the vote, which tells you that Americans really didn't want Bush. Those that did vote Bush, embraced him because Kerry did such a wonderful job of turning them off.
As for Hillary Clinton, if Eric is suggesting that she is a viable candidate to run for president, I sincerely hope he is in a distinct minority. The scandal surrounding this woman, who managed, because of female voters, to get elected to the Senate in a state that she knew nothing about, is unparalleled in American politics. Yet Eric is suggesting that she is not irrelevant.
She is not irrelevant, Eric, she is ambitious and dangerous. It is unfortunate that George Bush is president of the United States, but when you consider what the Democratic Party had to offer, it was inevitable."
-----------------
I certainly agree with this writer's comments.
-----------------
"I probably would have let Eric Bahrt's letter on irrelevancy ["Just who are you calling irrelevant", February 8] go if he hadn't brought up Hillary Clinton. But he did, so I am afraid I must comment.
First of all, mentioning the Democratic presidents of 1932 to 1948 was misleading. Four of those terms were served by Franklin D Roosevelt, the man who led America out of the Depression and started the Social Security programme. The fifth term was Truman, who became an incumbent because Roosevelt died in office. Further, American presidents can no longer serve more than two terms, so that stretch really doesn't mean a thing.
As for irrelevancy, John Kerry was less than irrelevant. He was moot. George Bush was so ripe for the taking that a trained monkey could have beaten him simply by not talking. Kerry's shameless trumpeting of his war record and his "Band of Brothers", not to mention his completely out-of-line mention of Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter so turned off American voters that Bush won by default.
Despite the total lack of a cogent Democratic battle plan, he still got 48 per cent of the vote, which tells you that Americans really didn't want Bush. Those that did vote Bush, embraced him because Kerry did such a wonderful job of turning them off.
As for Hillary Clinton, if Eric is suggesting that she is a viable candidate to run for president, I sincerely hope he is in a distinct minority. The scandal surrounding this woman, who managed, because of female voters, to get elected to the Senate in a state that she knew nothing about, is unparalleled in American politics. Yet Eric is suggesting that she is not irrelevant.
She is not irrelevant, Eric, she is ambitious and dangerous. It is unfortunate that George Bush is president of the United States, but when you consider what the Democratic Party had to offer, it was inevitable."
-----------------
I certainly agree with this writer's comments.
No comments:
Post a Comment