My potential LTTE to the Chicago Tribune. Critiques?

[JohnnyCougar]

I am writing this letter with the hope of framing this debate correctly once and for all. Republicans should be the ones scared to protect such an unpopular president. Censure is not "extreme," protecting and defending George W. Bush is extreme. Democrats have nothint to fear by pushing for censure. I'd be happy to hear your critiques!

Just yesterday, Senator Russ Feingold called for the censure of President Bush for breaking the law with his warrantless wiretapping program. The program, according to most legal scholars not directly connected to the White House, is a blatant violation of the standards set forth in the 1978 FISA Act. But before Feingold introduced the legislation before the Senate, Dick Cheney was already daring Democrats to support it, as if doing so would mean you are unpatriotic. Not that same old tired line.

I would take that dare. In fact, I would dare Republicans to let Bush, an extremely unpopular president, off the hook in an election year. With Bush's approval ratings in the mid 30's and 51-53% of the public supporting the impeachment of George W. Bush if indeed he did break the law, I would challenge Republican senators to stay on a sinking ship while there are still lifeboats available and time left before the 2006 elections. It is the Republicans that should cringe at defending an unpopular president when he so very clearly broke the law. In fact, I think Democrats like Barack Obama and Richard Durbin should band together to support censure, and then use Republicans' opposition to the move as a campaign issue in 2006. Endangered Republicans such as Lincoln Chaffee (RI) and Mike DeWine (OH) would be forced to defend kowtowing to a president who is vastly unpopular to a solid majority of the public, especially in their home states. In the most recent Gallup poll, 44% of Americans strongly disapprove of President Bush, and another 16% or so disapprove somewhat. That 44% strong disapproval rating is more than twice that of Americans who strongly approve of the job Bush is doing. In this circumstance, protecting the President should be a more risky move than censuring him.

Democrats should not be afraid of being labeled as "terrorist sympathizers" by the Rovian slime machine. Like the boy that cried wolf, that line has gotten old to a public in which a convincing majority does not even trust Bush when it comes to national security. Democrats should all get together and vote for censure. The measure has next to zero chance of passing in the Senate, but the vote will force Republicans to chose between siding with the law, or siding with the law breaker. No more investigation is needed, as Feingold clearly pointed out. A tough choice indeed for Republican senators with a public that already overwhelmingly favors Democrats in the looming 2006 elections.

If the Democrats give in to hollow pressure from Republicans who say censure is an "extreme" measure, it will leave the majority of the population thinking that they are extreme, a conundrum that has existed for over a year when it comes to disapproving of Bush. The fact is, approving of Bush is becoming a fringe position to take, a position Bill Frist and certain spineless Democrats are more than happy to fill.

XXXX XXXXX
Chicago, IL

[w8liftinglady]

1. Great Letter.You should send it to the Washington Post,too

[RagingInMiami]

2. It's way too long

You need to cut it significantly to increase your chances of getting it published.

[JohnnyCougar]

3. Really?

How many words do you think are appropriate?

[RagingInMiami]

4. Not more than 200

Space is precious in newspapers. Everything needs to be written tightly, LTTEs are no exception.

[JohnnyCougar]

6. Shit...

I don't think I can get my idea across in 200. I'd have to cut the letter length in half. :(

[RagingInMiami]

7. You can do it

You need to approach it as if it is not your letter, but someone else's letter your editing. Sometimes it's best to let it sit for a while then get back to it.

[JohnnyCougar]

8. How about this...

Just yesterday, Senator Russ Feingold called for the censure of President Bush for breaking the law with his warrantless wiretapping program. The program, according to most legal scholars not directly connected to the White House, is a blatant violation of the standards set forth in the 1978 FISA Act. But before Feingold introduced the legislation before the Senate, Dick Cheney was already daring Democrats to support it, as if doing so would mean you are unpatriotic. Yawn.

I would take that dare. I would dare Republicans to let Bush, an extremely unpopular president, off the hook in an election year. With Bush's approval ratings in the mid 30's and 51-53% of the public supporting the impeachment of George W. Bush if indeed he did break the law, I would challenge Republican senators to stay on a sinking ship while there are lifeboats still available. In the most recent Gallup poll, 44% of Americans strongly disapprove of President Bush, and another 16% disapprove somewhat. Bush's strong disapproval numbers are more than twice that of his strongly approve numbers. In this circumstance, protecting the President is a more risky move than censuring him.

Democrats should not be afraid of being labeled as "terrorist sympathizers" by the Rovian slime machine. Like the boy that cried wolf, that line has gotten old to a public in which a convincing majority does not even trust Bush when it comes to national security. The measure has next to zero chance of passing in the Senate, but the vote will force Republicans to chose between siding with the law, or siding with the law breaker. Giving in to Republicans who say censure is an "extreme" measure will leave the majority of the population thinking that they hold extreme views, a conundrum that has existed for over a year when it comes to disapproving of Bush. The fact is, defending Bush is becoming a fringe position to take, a position Bill Frist and certain spineless Democrats are more than happy to fill.

[RagingInMiami]

9. Read this while I read that (btw, you don't need to capitalize dems or rep

On Monday, Senator Russ Feingold called for the censure of President Bush for breaking the law with his warrantless wiretapping program. The program, according to most legal scholars not directly connected to the White House, is a blatant violation of the standards set forth in the 1978 FISA Act.

But before Feingold introduced the legislation before the Senate, Vice President Dick Cheney was already daring democrats to support it, as if doing so would mean they are unpatriotic.

Yep, that same old tired line.

I say, “bring it on.” I dare republicans to let Bush off the hook in an election year. With Bush's approval ratings hovering in the mid 30's and the majority of the public supporting his impeachment if he did break the law, I challenge republican senators to stay on that sinking ship while accusing democrats of being terrorist sympathizers.

Like the boy that cried wolf, that line has gotten old to a public, most don’t even trust Bush when it comes to national security anymore. And even though that measure has next to zero chance of passing in the Senate, democrats need to unite and vote for censure, which would force republicans to choose between siding with the law or with the lawbreaker.

[RagingInMiami]

10. This is better because it's shorter

I still think it can be a little shorter. I don't think you need to cite so many percentage numbers when addressing the approval poll issue because it becomes redundant. I would take out Bill Frist's name for the simple fact is that it introduces another character when you want the two main characters, Feingold and Bush, to stand out.

[Behind the Aegis]

11. My opinion and suggestions

Yesterday, Senator Russ Feingold called for the censure of President Bush for breaking the law with his warrantless wiretapping program. The program, according to most legal scholars not directly connected to the White House, is a blatant violation of the standards set forth in the 1978 FISA Act. But before Feingold introduced the legislation before the Senate, Dick Cheney was already daring Democrats to support it, as if doing so would means they are unpatriotic. They should take that dare.

Have Republicans let Bush, an extremely unpopular president, off the hook in an election year. With Bush's approval ratings in the mid 30's and 51-53% of the public supporting the impeachment of George W. Bush, if indeed he did break the law, they should challenge Republican senators to stay on a sinking ship, while there are lifeboats still available. In the most recent Gallup poll, 44% of Americans strongly disapprove of President Bush, and another 16% disapprove somewhat. Bush's strong disapproval numbers are more than twice that of his strongly approve numbers. In this circumstance, protecting Bush is a more risky move than censuring him.

Democrats should not be afraid of being labeled as "terrorist sympathizers" by the "Rovian slime machine." Like "the boy that cried wolf," labeling someone a 'terrorist sympathizer' has gotten old to the public, in which a convincing majority does not even trust Bush when it comes to national security. The measure has next to zero chance of passing in the Senate, but the vote will force Republicans to chose between siding with the law or siding with the law breaker. Giving in to Republicans, who say censure is an "extreme" measure, will leave the majority of the population thinking that they hold extreme views; a conundrum that has existed for over a year when it comes to disapproving of Bush. The fact is defending Bush is becoming a fringe position to take, a position Bill Frist and certain spineless Democrats are more than happy to fill.

These are just suggestions. I made the discussion about all democrats, not just your position.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

13. exactly. agree with Ragin's thoughts. But I like the LTTE sentiment

[NewJeffCT]

12. RaginginMiami is correct, 200 is the standard

Most papers usually will not allow you more than that... the biggest paper here in CT does print longer LTTEs on Saturdays, however.

[RagingInMiami]

5. check out these links for general guidelines

http://wa.essortment.com/lettertothe_rvet.htm

http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/resources/special_initiatives/toolkit_resources/tipsheets/writing_letter_editor.cfm