Quotes of the Day
How to Build a Better Democrat
Joe Klein hit the nail right on the head in his analysis of what the DEMOCRATIC Party must do to unseat George W. Bush in the 2004 presidential election [NATION, May 19]. Democrats should wake up and stand for something instead of always being against things. Until they do, they will probably continue to lose ground to the Republicans. Think what you will about Bush, you can't say he's afraid to state his beliefs and act on them.
MARK RIOUX
Saco, Maine
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
Klein's story was witty and perceptive. Yet he missed the point. The real lesson of the 2000 election was that Democrats can't win by chasing Republicans further to the right. Both parties are going after the same voters. The key to a Democratic victory in 2004 is to target the half of the electorate that doesn't vote, at least in part because these citizens see no credible alternative in the current 1 1/2-party system. What the Dems need is a genuine fire-breathing, rabble-rousing populist. Anyone can be "strong on defense," but winning back disaffected progressive voters requires a candidate with the guts to forcefully denounce Bush and his gang.
DOUG ABBOTT
Silver City, N.M.
We Democrats are truly the "big tent" party, and as such, we are a much more diverse party than the Republicans. And because of this diversity, we Dems are often at odds with one another. We are a party that allows dissent, even thrives on it. Many consider this dissension a sign of weakness, and regard the G.O.P., which tolerates little disagreement, as a party of strength. That view is wrong. The Democratic Party is the party from the heart of America. We represent Americans of every nationality, creed and religion. Could we do better? No question. Can we do better than the Republicans and Bush? Without a doubt.
CHARLES TRANBERG
Madison, Wis.
The Democrats have to fight on the Republicans' turf. It's time to get down and dirty, tell the truth and not worry about the backlash. Truth and a get-tough strategy have a chance. Business as usual would be another disaster.
REGINA AVRAHAM
New York City
Three simple questions can defeat Bush. First, is our society better off economically than it was four years ago? Second, is the world better off and safer now than it was four years ago? (Does anyone truly feel comfortable taking an airplane trip to Europe?) Third, do we feel safer in the U.S. now that we have many fewer civil liberties than we did four years ago?
DALE HILL
Washita, Okla.
The economy is weak, unemployment is up, the deficit is soaring and millions of people are without health care. Bush is eminently beatable in 2004. The Democrats have plenty of ammo to go after him. They just have to stop acting like a rudderless bunch and go for the jugular.
GARY SARTORI
Concord, N.H.
Klein says Democrats need a large and overarching theme, a battle cry to win in 2004. Luckily, Democrats have such a theme: fairness. The Democrats trump the Republicans on education and Social Security, on health care for the elderly, on the economy and taxes, on living wages and job creation. To win in 2004, Democrats should not run against Bush at all. Instead they should run against Republicans and all that the party stands for.
BRUCE H. THORSTAD
Dresser, Wis.
I am disgusted by the wimpy Democrats. I wish that they would crawl out from under their beds and stand up for something, even if it is a well-deserved kick for not voicing their opinions on the war, tax breaks for the wealthy, threats to our environment, deepening national debt, alienation of foreign countries and policies that benefit Big Business.
ESSDALE WILSON
Binghamton, N.Y.
As long as the Democratic Party persists in whining and criticism, it will have nothing to offer a populace that is proud of its country. If the Democrats want to return to viability, they must praise the nation's accomplishments — their own and those of the GOP — in a meaningful way and be seen as building upon them. Need a formula? Giving 10 compliments earns the right to express one criticism.
EDWARD GABRIELSE
St. Charles, Ill.
--Did our cover photo of President Franklin Roosevelt project an image that Democrats today should emulate? "With the fat-cat aura generated by his pince-nez and cigarette holder as he rode down the street in his fancy car, the rakishly grinning F.D.R. cut perhaps the least Democratic profile I've ever seen," wrote a Massachusetts reader. Others, perhaps a bit defensive about the the current slate of Democratic candidates, wanted to turn the tables. "I look forward to a future issue of TIME examining 'Why They Don't Make Republicans Like They Used To,'" wrote a New Yorker. "The cover should be graced by a picture of Abraham Lincoln."
Race, Lies and Plagiarism
"Reading Between The Lies," your article on Jayson Blair, the journalist who resigned from the New York Times after it was revealed that he plagiarized and fabricated stories [PRESS, May 19], was interesting and balanced until you quoted a Times senior manager as saying the paper sometimes hires minority reporters whose experience is "significantly below" what the paper would normally require. To include this statement without additional corroboration from other Times personnel was careless and offensive to black journalists.
LASHAWN Y. HAND
Philadelphia
Blair will not go down in history as the only reporter to fudge a line or two. If the scope of his misdeeds seems astounding, his behavior should be put in context. People must cope on a daily basis with the news media's half-truths, tainted and slanted stories and outright censorship. Blair's scandal is only a very small part of that. The public should tolerate none of it.
DAVID C. HOFFMEISTER
Easton, Pa.
The root cause of the Blair fiasco has not been addressed by the New York Times. First, the paper carried affirmative action to grotesque extremes, giving Blair breaks no young white reporter would have got. Then when Blair made mistakes that would not have been tolerated in a white reporter, the paper's editors didn't call Blair on them but instead rewarded him. When he hanged himself with the rope the Times so liberally provided, they fired him. Thus they ensured that he wouldn't learn from his initial mistakes by requiring that he face the just consequences, and then they ensured that he would never get another newspaper job. No blatant racist could have done better. The fault lies not with Blair but with the fuzzy-headed and immoral self-congratulatory liberalism of the Times.
EDNA SELAN EPSTEIN
Chicago
Of Politics and Petroleum
Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele showed refreshing honesty in their reporting on the history of America's oil-driven meddling in Middle East politics [BUSINESS, May 19]. If you had run this as a cover story three months ago, you could have helped many naive Americans see the real motive behind the Bush Administration's war on Iraq: to colonize the country that has the potential to become the world's largest oil producer. I applaud you for reporting that the U.S. has created its own problems and enemies in the Middle East through decades of shortsighted, immoral policy. But you should have told this story sooner. It might have helped prevent a war.
CLAUDE ROBOTHAM
New York City
Thank you for Barlett and Steele's historical analysis of U.S. foreign policy vis-a-vis oil. U.S. citizens need to understand the sordid history of our involvement in the Middle East and why our policies have led to widespread and virulent anti-American sentiment in the region. Sadly, the current Iraqi quagmire is yet another disastrous chapter. Our self-serving leaders continue to promote polices of deception and violence. We know now what the whole world sees: this war was not about weapons of mass destruction threatening our homeland but, once again, about securing oil for our wasteful and unsustainable economy.
KRISTINA M. GRONQUIST
Minneapolis, Minn.
One need read only the first few paragraphs to perceive the anti-Administration sentiment of the authors. The war in Iraq was clearly not about oil for the U.S., as many claim. The postwar significance of oil is that it is a necessity for the economic rebuilding of Iraq, a country decimated by a brutal regime.
TOM DOWNEY
San Diego
This report was a revisionist attack on aspects of America's successful policy of containing the Soviet Union over a period of some 40 years. In implementing that policy, the U.S. government did not always have perfectly clean hands, but it was struggling against a regime as evil as those of Hitler, Saddam Hussein and maybe Mao combined. So the U.S. manipulated foreign governments! So what? Which do Barlett and Steele believe was the better option — giving in to the Soviets, or nuclear war?
PHILLIP HAWLEY
Galliate Lombardo, Italy
Barlett and Steele shed light on some of the dark consequences of America's bottomless thirst for oil. At a time when our national energy and foreign policies, oil-driven as ever, seem so heedless of the future, perhaps such lessons from the past can help galvanize our will to change.
THOMAS R. MARTON
Brookline, Mass.
Save Your Skin
"Botox and Beyond" described some new methods of cosmetic surgery [HEALTH, May 19]. You called Cymera perhaps the "creepiest substance" being used to fill wrinkles because it is made from the skin of human cadavers. I ask which is creepier and probably more dangerous: Botox, short for botulinum toxin, a paralyzing poison, or natural human skin? As a physician, I have to ask myself if it is ethical to spend time and money on cosmetic, forever-young potions when disorders like obesity, hypertension and cancer plague our society.
J. GREGORY RIDGWAY, D.O.
Yuma, Ariz.
Looking Beyond Castro
I was waiting to see what time would say about Fidel Castro's crackdown on Cuban dissidents [WORLD, May 19]. Tim Padgett's thoughtful and balanced appraisal of Oswaldo Paya, the Cuban dissident who stayed in the country to work for democratic reform, was worth the wait. Paya's drive calling for a plebiscite on free speech and multiparty elections has placed the emphasis on a hopeful future. Castro has run Cuba as his feudal estate for 44 years, but his naive supporters are finally seeing him for the tyrant he is. As Padgett wrote, Paya has succeeded in "wresting the Cuba debate away from pro-and anti-Castro extremists." The debate is now about measures that will be pro-or anti-Cuba, the freedom of its people from tyranny and oppression, with the understanding that Cuba and Castro are not synonymous.
MARIJEAN MIYAR
Coral Gables, Fla.
I wish Bush would show the same guts in dealing with Castro that he showed with Saddam. Both are murderous dictators. Why not have our troops stop by and take care of Cuba on the way back from the gulf?
ROY U. ROJAS WAHL
Teaneck, N.J.
It is refreshing to see someone like Paya fight for what he believes in with reason and logic rather than with Latin emotion. For years I have argued over the futility of the embargo with my fellow Cuban Americans, to no avail. Perhaps it takes someone still living inside Cuba to better understand that the embargo serves only to perpetuate the interests of Castro's government. And the restrictions on U.S. citizens' traveling to Cuba prevent an open dialogue with Cubans who are still think the U.S. wishes them harm. Unlike many of us who chose to leave Cuba, Paya has stayed and struggled for change from within. He has earned my respect and support.
ALEJANDRO GARCIA
Plano, Texas
The Young Hitler
Your story on the mini-series Hitler: The Rise of Evil [TELEVISION, May 19] reported that many people were concerned that this biography of Adolf Hitler would risk humanizing the tyrant — as if this were a bad thing! What better way to combat evil than to understand it in its full context? We must comprehend all the facets — human and inhuman — of Hitler's life in order to appreciate fully the horror that his hate brought to the world. In refusing to pay attention to the disturbing ways in which Hitler may have resembled a normal person, the world runs the risk of allowing another Hitler figure to twist our minds.
HAYWOOD FOARD
Gloucester, Va.
Cheney's Life Support
How nice to hear Vice President Dick Cheney gloating that he has "a doc with me 24 hours a day" [VERBATIM, May 19]. It should be mighty encouraging to the U.S.'s uncounted millions of uninsured workers to know that their withholding taxes are helping pay for Cheney's round-the-clock medical care, even though these workers couldn't pry their way into their own doctor's office with a crowbar. Isn't there anything that would shame this rich-get-richer, poor-get-poorer Administration? Apparently not.
GLENN HODGES
Memphis, Tenn.