Quantcast

Web Letters | The Nation

Web Letter

"Americans are ready to rally behind the idea that government can be a part of the solution to our economic woes." ???? I am appalled at the ignorance behind this statement. Americans are rallying behind the demand for the recovery of our Republic. We need constitutional government, limited government, and in particular a return to sound money. The growing support behind Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty is a case in point. Wake up and pay attention. The New Deal was ruled unconstitutional in its day, and it is still unconstitutional today.

Mary T. Ficalora

author, <i>Choosing Honor</i><br />Agoura Hills, CA

Sep 3 2008 - 12:40pm

Web Letter

The Democratic Party is not a progressive party, period. There are a couple of Democratic politicians who are reasonably progressive, but they are despised by their own party leadership. Nobody, not The Nation, not millions of people suffering and struggling across the country, are going to make the Democratic Party progressive. They serve big money, and that's it. That goes for the party leadership and it sure as hell goes for their presidential nominee. When are you guys going to get that?

"Let's hope Obama does better"? Are you kidding me? Are you guys actually running on hope? Why can't you guys stand firm on progressive principles and back a candidate that stands firmly with you, instead of getting on your knees and begging one that doesn't and never will? Do you actually think he's going to be grateful for your support and change once he wins the election? That's not hope; that's tragic delusion.

Show some courage and some conviction and back either Nader or McKinney. Heck, back both! They need your support and, believe me, you'll feel better about yourselves in the morning.

Jan Morales

Takoma Park, MD

Aug 20 2008 - 7:17am

Web Letter

This business of Presidents using our money to purchase from us what would be our influence, and describing the act as "faith-based," is not only goofy but unconstitutional, and unconstitutional in more ways than one: we have children going hungry because we agree to it and to thousands of things like it. The problem is obvious: some people have too much (of our) money to spend.

We could make one quick change in the books, so that folks who represent the bottom of the economic ladder would have a right to keep and to direct the use, if any, of significantly more of their own money. The resulting process would be superior to the democratic, and would tell us, for the first time, where the people's priorities are.

Most of us in this country have never known capitalism.

Cameron Jones

Indiana, PA

Aug 20 2008 - 5:33am

Web Letter

If Barack Obama loses the 2008 election, it won't be because his policies aren't developed to the fullest. It will be because he's a black man and an enormous percentage of white Americans will never vote for a black man. So this election will show just how modern the white voters of the United States are. Not how developed the platform is.

Richard N. Packer

Pittsburgh, PA

Aug 19 2008 - 3:51pm

Web Letter

In order to offer bold new ideas to the citizenry, don't the Democrats actually have to have some?

Gillian Rosheuvel

Chicago , IL

Aug 18 2008 - 4:23pm

Before commenting, please read our Community Guidelines.