Letters to the Editor

What You Say

Why do you allow David Faris' fevered fantasies to go on unedited [Slant, "After the Landslide," June 12, 2008]? He imagines Obama stripping Senator Lieberman "of every position of any importance in the Democratic Senate."

There is that little matter of the U.S. Constitution with its pesky separation-of-powers structure. A president simply cannot strip a fellow senator of anything! Further, Faris' major premise (that Obama will win by a landslide) is typical pre-election wishing by urban, coast-based liberals who can't grasp how heartland America thinks and votes. There will be a landslide come November, but it will be Barry O who loses the electoral college on the order of Jimmy Carter's defeat in 1980.

John Nernoff
Philadelphia

David Faris fantasizes about a President Obama stripping Joe Lieberman of all power in the Senate before (I assume) proudly overseeing Ned Lamont's "people-powered" rematch. The problem is that an actual ideological purge of the Democratic party — demoting and kicking out those who were party to the Bush administration's war crimes — would leave very few people in the wings to take over. Not for nothing, the authorization to use force in Iraq was a 77-23 blowout that implicates Democratic heroes like John Edwards and Harry Reid.

It says a lot about the party that the candidate who nearly took it all away from Obama was a war supporter who evinced very little remorse or assurance that it wouldn't happen again — and that she did it in the party aligned with the left, when the majority of all Americans want to get the hell out. As Jon Schwarz used to joke, the Soviet Union would still be around if they had two Communist parties, alike on every issue but abortion.

Matthew Sullivan
Via e-mail

This article is an outstanding example of class warfare rhetoric aimed at destroying the foundations of this nation, which are based on individual liberty, property rights and the rule of law. These foundations, and not "progressive" issues, are what has made the United States the provider of the greatest standard of living for the greatest proportion of its population the human race has ever experienced. I hope Faris realizes this in some cerebral corner of his brain, but the tone of his article leads me to believe otherwise.

I am not a Republican, I am not a Bush supporter. But there is nothing this nation has done over the past 5-10 years that has declared any sort of war on the poor and middle class. Rather Faris bemoans the standard cry of welfare-statists the world over.

I applaud Faris for his idealism and I have no doubt that his beliefs are based on the best of intentions, but it is clear to thinking rational human beings that "progressive" measures as advocated by the Left only accelerate the plundering of the poor man's pocket and make him ever more dependent on big guvmn't. It's all about power, and the Left is as guilty of anyone else of doing whatever it takes to secure political power, regardless of the cost to this nation or what this all means for your average American.

I, too, believe there is a need for revolutionary and radical change in the way the U.S. is governed, but the direction offered by the left is not the way to go — it is simply mimicking the failed policies of other nations and ideologies and exemplifies a profound lack of innovation or creativity. Please note I am not defending the current administration at all, just pointing out that the road to Hades is paved with good intentions.

Joe Ferrari
Frostburg, MD

David Faris reminds me of a Trotskyite. "President elect-Obama can march into Lieberman's office and strip him of every position of any importance in the Democratic Senate, the political equivalent of busting him down in private." Stalinist purge?

It is funny that Democrats like to cannibalize their own members. This article will be a classic. Tell David Faris not to count his chicks before they are hatched.

President McCain will not be as vindicative as Obama. One thing about Republicans is that, in person, they are more gentle and polite than their counterparts.

Jan Sklaroff
Via e-mail

My editor approached me about covering the AAN convention four days before the event. He made it clear he was a fan of alternative weeklies and their scrappiness. He wanted me to specifically go into the unique challenges they are facing in the era of shrinking news budgets and news holes at the big metro dailies. It was a legitimate business story. And given Philadelphia is home to two venerable dailies and two weeklies that co-exist, it warranted coverage.

On another level, Mr. Schimmel went over the line by referencing that "I stood out" at the conference by "wearing business attire and makeup" and that "being a young Asian woman" he would never hire me. In my 12 years at the Inquirer, if I ever referred to a source in such a derogatory light, I would have been reprimanded. Never would I have referred to Mr. Schimmel in ways that detail his shortcomings. His remarks came off as sexist and racist. My appearance and ethnicity had absolutely nothing to do with me being assigned to cover the AAN convention for the cover of the Inquirer's business section on June 7, 2008. It's unfortunate that Mr. Schimmel, who boasted about respecting "alternative and diverse lifestyles" as former publisher of the City Paper, took such a low-brow approach.

Suzette Parmley

The Philadelphia Inquirer

In the June 12 Loose Canon column, Bruce Schimmel reported that Suzette Parmley told him she'd been assigned to write something "breezy." Parmley says it had been suggested to her that she write in a "frothy style to underscore the independence and scrappiness of alternative weeklies."