« A sign of the times | Main | Equal preaching rights »

January 25, 2006

A sad take on rights

It’s clear that Patricia Gottardi (1/19, Letters) loves our country. So for her to accept anything the administration does because “such people know civil rights have no value when we’re dead” is sad.

Terrorism cannot defeat America by killing Americans. If we surrender our freedom and constitutional rights out of fear, if we condemn our countrymen for exercising those rights, and if we do not defend the rule of law, are we still America?

John Meyer
Blue Springs


Jim Dent

I was referring to election campaigns Chris, not individual Democrats......


Jim, after watching the smearing that went on in the Alito hearings, I have to disagree with your entire post. That entire performance was 99 percent smear, 1 percent honest questioning.

Jim Dent

"I remember it differently. Kerry wasn't nuanced so much as indecisive to the point of parody."

Not to pick on you in particular Chris, but Republicans saw Kerry the way Republican attack ad's wanted him portrayed. I must say the Republicans did a "much" better job of defining Kerry, than his own party did.

The Republican political machine clearly rolled over the Democratic machine, and Kerry spent the entire election playing defense. I don't think that was his fault so much as the fault of his advisers in particular, and Democrats in general.

Democrats for whatever reason, just don't "go for the jugular" like Republicans do.
Sadly, until the Democrats quit bringing a Knife to a gun fight, we will be stuck with a "one party government", to the detriment of us all......


"If Hamlet had a longer chin, he would be John Kerry."

And Bush is looking more and more like Rosencrantz and Guildenstern:

"We cross our bridges when we come to them and burn them behind us, with nothing to show for our progress except a memory of the smell of smoke, and a presumption that once our eyes watered."


Actually Chris the democrats propose those policies all the time, but they never even make it out of committee because the republicans control the committes and the floor votes. Frist decides what the agenda will be in the Senate and Hassert does the same in the House.


"The "polls" during the last election reflected most Americans didn't like a lot of what Bush and the Reps were proposing, but saw them as best able to "protect" the country from terrorism and gays (a novel combination)."

This is an interesting point, because you would think that in a democracy people would get the policies that they want. It reminds me of a Molly Ivins' column from last week that seemed to show that leftwing policy positions were hugely favored by the American people -- according to polls.(http://www.creators.com/opinion_show.cfm?next=2&ColumnsName=miv)
If these polls were true, then why don't elected democrats even try to propose legislation to pass these policies? My best guess is that the polls are in fact wrong and that the elected officials know better. That's my theory, at least, to explain why such "popular" policies never see the light of day. I'm sure there are conspiracy theories out there about evil corporations and their ilk, but I'm not buying.

"Not saying he is one, but remember how Kerry got bashed for having "nuanced" positions?"

I remember it differently. Kerry wasn't nuanced so much as indecisive to the point of parody. If Hamlet had a longer chin, he would be John Kerry.


I know that the Iraqis acted bravely to vote. Still think the question is worthwhile. I think this country needs some self-reflection right now. None of the crippling '60s "I have to find out who I am" wandering. But a little soul searching might be in order.

The "polls" during the last election reflected most Americans didn't like a lot of what Bush and the Reps were proposing, but saw them as best able to "protect" the country from terrorism and gays (a novel combination).

Now that the fear of terrorism is wearing off, it is leaving the Reps with gay bashing and all of their scandals to live with. Too bad.

I really think I am about to get a classic T.A.T.B.O. election. Then the Dems can start playing BS power games.

Too bad people don't voat for "centrists" anymore. Not saying he is one, but remember how Kerry got bashed for having "nuanced" positions? Seems to me that "nuance" tends to require a little thought to either follow or decide on. All or nothing positions are so much easier for those that just don't want to be bothered by anyhting that requires thought. Too bad. Especially for our great grand children. What a horrible mess we are leaving them.


"Is a bare majority really best characterized as "the mainstream"?"

It's not a perfect system, but it's far better than saying that because we have a democrat party, that they automatically get a near equal number of seats in congress. This is anti-democratic. If democrats want to balance out the political system, then they need to expand their coalition and win some elections. As for Hillary winning in 2008, Irish Guy can keep dreaming...

Ray Seay


I think your idea of a party split would be good for the country as it would limit what the gov. could do, which is good.



I'm loking at my county map and its pretty red with only spots of blue. Are you contending that the "mainstream" is to the left of the majority?


"In a two-party democracy, the party in charge does represent the actual mainstream. And when one party controls the presidency, the house, and the senate, then it just reinforces the point even further. Awww, for the genius of democracy..."

And that can all change in the next election. THAT'S the true genius of democracy.


Is a bare majority really best characterized as "the mainstream"?

If you look at a county-by-county breakdown of voting patterns in 2004 election, you'll see it looks a lot more like a "Purple America" than it does "Red" or "Blue."


M. L. Stein

Good letter! If we give up any constitutional rights such as Article IV of the Bill Rights, all rights will be in jeopardy.

If any leader is allowed to abrogate any right by declaring that the country is at war, then we will have no rights. Why?

Simple, because any unscrupulous leader can declare a state of war legal or otherwise whenever he/she is allowed to do so.


An even division, with people working together, sounds ideal. However, when we approach balance in congress we usually approach a static condition. So far as mainstream is concerned, it would seem that if a party controls both houses of Congress and the Presidency, it must come pretty close to representing the actual mainstream.


Well technically I think you could call it a democracy because they can choose who to vote for (if more than one choice), but I don't think you could call it freedom. At least in our sense of the word.

And I actually thought the same thing Jack.

I also have to comment on one of your comments some time ago.. that you didn't leave the republican party...it left you... Same with me. I was talking to my mom last night in that I am considered an extreme liberal when I have always felt I am a centrist. But then if the pendulum is completely to the right and I am in the middle then comparatively I am left leaning. My wish would be that we have a 51-49 split in the senate, a 218/217 split in the house (opposite the senate) and then which ever party has the 51 in the senate the other one is in the WH. Can't get much more central than this. To me this would make everyone "play together" to get things done and would be much more in line with the "main-stream" of the country.... anyway... just my two cents... I am sure I will get bashed for this post, but I had to mention this one. And I know it is off topic... sorry folks.


May I add a question I kept asking when we went into Iraq?

If you bring a country democracy, but bring it at the point of a gun, havve you really brought them democracy at all?

"Vote or I shoot!"


Right on John!!! My sentiments exactly!

About KansasCity.com | About the Real Cities Network | Terms of Use & Privacy Statement | About Knight Ridder | Copyright