Dear Editor and Rady Ananda

I have copied a passage from the article below. I respect the views of the back bone group. However this remark I do not believe is reporting, but simply the writer’s opinion. It is an attitude that is pervasive among many grassroots Democrats and Progressives and it is one of the reasons the Democratic Party has lost so much of its centrist base to the Republicans. It is also just plain wrong as it is insulting to assign these issues to “red”. As shocking as it may be to some, there are many Democrats who are concerned about the issues listed below and do consider them to be part of their Democratic Value system. The Democratic Party is a big tent and there are many ideas shared. Instead of protesting, why not come on inside and join the party and exchange ideas and views. I attended the DLC and those outside protesting could have participated as well if they wanted to. It was inside where their message would have been heard and listened to.  When Democrats start working together, then nobody will stop us.

Best Regards
Eric McFadden – Chairman
Ohio Democratic Catholic Caucus

To the Editor:
Thomas L. Friedman has chosen the right man in pointing to Lance Armstrong as a role model ("Learning From Lance," column, July 27). Armstrong's will and brilliance in overcoming cancer and winning seven Tours de France are the stuff of legend.
But Mr. Friedman does not mention Armstrong's equally important opposition to the war in Iraq. Though a personal friend of President Bush, Armstrong has sharply and correctly criticized the war as politically wrongheaded and catastrophically expensive. "I don't like what the war has done to our country, to our economy," he said last year. "My kids will be paying for this war for some time to come."
Mr. Friedman is right to admire Armstrong as an athlete. Lance also has it right on this awful war.
Harvey Wasserman
Bexley, Ohio, July 27, 2005

Last weekend, the Progressive Ohio Backbone Campaign rallied for three days before the Democratic Leadership Council, which held its annual convention in Columbus, Ohio, July 23rd-25th

-- Backboners wanted a voice in the DLC’s “National Conversation – It’s about the American Dream.”

Outgoing DLC leader, Evan Bayh (D-Ind) misread the “Got Spine?” message and won resounding applause when he promised conventioneers, “Too many of our countrymen, right here in the heartland, believe Democrats … don’t have the spine or the backbone to use force even in the face of the most compelling of circumstances.  And that must change.” 

Hillary Clinton echoed these sentiments when she called for a “unified coherent strategy focused on eliminating terrorists wherever we find them.”  She wants the US to remain in Iraq until peace is achieved, characterizing the mission as part of the “long struggle against terrorism,” when she spoke before the think tank, the Aspen Institute, earlier this month. (AP 7/11/05)

The acclaimed New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has often voiced enthusiasm for violent destruction by the U.S. government. Hidden in plain sight, his glee about such carnage is worth pondering.

Many people view Friedman as notably articulate, while others find him overly glib, but there’s no doubt that he is an influential commentator with inherently respectable views. When Friedman makes his case for a shift in foreign policy, the conventional media wisdom is that he’s providing a sober assessment. Yet beneath his liberal exterior is a penchant for remedies that rely on massive Pentagon firepower.

And so, his July 27 column in the Times -- after urging Americans “to thoughtfully plan ahead and to sacrifice today for a big gain tomorrow” -- scolds the commander in chief for being too much of a wimp and failing to demand enough human sacrifice. Friedman poses a rhetorical question begging for a militaristic answer and then dutifully supplies one: “If you were president, would you really say to the nation, in the face of the chaos in Iraq, ‘If our commanders on the ground say we need more troops, I will send

From the moment the John Roberts nomination was announced, the media called it a done deal. NPR and the New York Times gushed over his humility, humor, and congeniality. With Roberts’s belief system barely mentioned, you’d think Bush had just nominated Mister Rogers.

In the wake of this media love fest, I keep encountering people who oppose everything Roberts has stood for, but see no use in trying to stop what seems his inevitable confirmation. But we can make a powerful impact by raising the discomforting truth that Roberts may be closer to a smiling Antonin Scalia. However the Senators vote—and it’s not foreordained, the more we raise key issues and principles, the more they’ll echo down the line around future nominations and policies.

Roberts is being hailed as the brilliant Harvard lawyer who gets along with everyone. He’s conservative, but reasonable. He doesn’t froth at the mouth. He barely barks. Unlike Bush’s three most recent Appeals Court appointees, he hasn’t led a right wing ideological charge. He’s being praised as a nomination Bush should be proud of.