In Thursday's Letters to the editor
In Thursday's Letters to the editor, the election conversation continues. Vince Buck, a professor emeritus at Cal State Fullerton, offers another reason opponents might dislike Proposition 11, the redisricting initiative discussed in this George Skelton column and in this news story:
A more important reason for voting against this poorly-structured proposition is that the cure is worse than the disease.
...The process simply will not work, and apportionment will end up with the courts as it did in 1991. Why not just start there and save the state a lot of time and money?
Readers also take issue with Joel Stein's column suggesting that undecided Americans shouldn't vote. Writes Jack Yaghoubian, of Toluca Lake:
Stein brands the 80 undecided voters seated at last week's town hall-style debate "idiots."
...He pontificates, "A high voter turnout doesn't make our democracy work better." In light of the fact that the bedrock of any democracy is the participation of its citizens in the affairs of the country, Stein's statement is what is idiotic.
Tortoises for dinner, former L.A. city commissioner Leland Wong is sentenced, and a suicide net for Golden Gate Bridge, too.
*Voter photo by Irfan Khan/Los Angeles Times.
Neil, check out this post by my colleague Mike McGough on the question of whether candidates should be held responsible for the opinions voiced by their most extreme supporters. IMHO, the question should be whether the candidate said something that incited inappropriate comments or behavior by supporters. Otherwise, you'd be holding candidates accountable for what the whack-jobs on either side say. I just stumbled across a comment by a McCain supporter who called Colin Powell a "traitor." Does McCain have to repudiate that? Of course not.
It's not surprising that this campaign has gotten ugly, despite McCain's great personal dignity and Obama's imperturbability. The country has gotten more and more polarized over the past few decades. Partisans don't just disagree, they get angry at the other side -- witness all the "Impeach Bush" bumper stickers, or tap into some of the comments that anti-abortion activists make about Nancy Pelosi. Nevertheless, candidates should be free to criticize each other without being blamed for what zealots in their ranks say, as long as the criticism is based in reality.
Posted by: Jon Healey | October 16, 2008 at 11:55 AM
Dear Mr. Obama,
You said in the debate that you would not repudiate comments made by your supporters because the debate should not be about "hurt feelings."
Repudiating your supporters' comments is not about "hurt feelings." It is about accountability,
By repudiating outrageous comments by your supporters, you are setting limits on what can and cannot be said, and therefore, are facilitating a clean campaign.
By not repudiating outrageous comments by your supporters, you are implicitly giving them permission to say or do or publish or broadcast anything they want, making a clean campaign impossible.
If you want to keep your promise of a clean campaign, you had better start repudiating.
Posted by: Neil Barembaum | October 16, 2008 at 08:11 AM
Given Colletti's and McCourt's track record, it's conceivable they will be dumb enough to give Manny his 4 year $100 million or better contract. The only other GM stupid enough to get into a bidding war with the clueless McCourt is Omar Minaya which of course the snake of snakes Scott Boras is counting on. Watching Manny attempt to play LF (1B isn't an option) over the 2nd half of his contract while pitchers are blowing fastballs by him (at 39 and 40 years old his bat will slow up) should be interesting. As much as TJ Simers has been carrying this lowlife's water since he arrived in LA and as much as a media laughingstock as Simers has become, the rest of us can only hope that the genius McCourt/Colletti team listens to his hysteria and takes his advice.
Posted by: Bob Litvak | October 16, 2008 at 04:55 AM