Letter Submission

To submit a letter to the editor, please email us at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Letters must contain the author's name, hometown (state as well, if not in New Hampshire) and phone number, but the number will not be published. We do not run anonymous letters. Local issues get priority, as do local writers. We encourage writers to keep letters to no more than 400 words, but will accept longer letters to be run on a space-available basis. Letters may be edited for spelling, grammar, punctuation and legal concerns.


Susan Estrich - President Bernie?


For Sen. Bernie Sanders, along with surprise hit of the summer season Donald Trump, some people are really beginning to ask: could it happen?

Could Bernie Sanders win Iowa? He could. Mike Huckabee, who had launched his campaign on a weight-loss platform (I was a fan), won Iowa, and everyone spent the whole night figuring out how much it would hurt Romney (answer: a lot) and help McCain (ditto).

Could Bernie Sanders win New Hampshire? I guess he could. Indeed, he could do well enough that even in losing, he embarrasses Hillary Clinton, or worse. Those of us old enough (in my case, barely, of course) will remember that Eugene McCarthy lost the New Hampshire primary to the incumbent President Lyndon Johnson, but his showing was strong enough that Johnson pulled out of the race.

But at that point Eugene McCarthy did not become the favorite for the nomination. Far from it. He was an unwilling and unwitting stalking horse. When Johnson bowed out, Sen. Robert F. Kennedy and Vice President Hubert Humphrey jumped in. The fight for the nomination ended with a shot fired at Kennedy in the kitchen of the Ambassador Hotel on his way to claim victory in the California primary.

No one knows what might have happened in a different 1968 matchup but we know exactly what happened in the actual one: Hubert Humphrey, like Eugene McCarthy, did not become president. Richard Nixon, the former Vice President, did.

I don't know any political hacks (other than those on the payroll) who think it likely that the Democrats will nominate an independent Senator from Vermont who will be a much tougher sell in a general election than in the early contests, which are always dominated by activists. The harder question that people are asking is: what does this say about Hillary Clinton? How could it be that the first woman to stand a real chance of becoming president is neck-and-neck with Bernie Sanders? What does it say that so many Democrats — Democrats of the activist persuasion — would be against Clinton? Are they really voting for Bernie Sanders or is it instead a vote against Clinton?

Clinton has not had a great month. The old rule for handling a crisis like the e-mail server one was to put all the information, every last scrap of it that you could, including every classified e-mail and state department document, out at once. Total transparency. In this scenario, Clinton would stand up and take responsibility, say that given her past she had concerns about privacy but that she should never have allowed any business to be done on her home server; that she tried her best to ensure that no classified information was ever on the server and is troubled to learn that there are however many incidents in which she was sent classified material. Then she would let the press ask whatever they want, and then it's out, it's over, you've done what people want, which is to take responsibility and own up to your mistakes, and it's over. That's the old rule. Think, if you are old enough, of Geraldine Ferraro in 1984.
The exception, of course, is when the admission — if it came in the heat of the moment — would create a wave of momentum that would push you out of the race or out of office, so you have to stonewall and hope the other side overreaches and people get tired of the story. Think Monica Lewinsky.

I just don't think there's a smoking gun hiding in the e-mails. If there is, there won't be a nomination; winning an office is harder than not losing it, and the only question will be: who jumps in? The Democratic race could get as crowded as the Republican race in no time. But I just don't see it. I fear that Clinton really doesn't think she did anything wrong, and resents the politicization of her privacy by Republicans who will use anything against her, all of which is true (even paranoid people have real enemies). But it's the least attractive memory of the Clinton years, and not one to call up. This is not a "right-wing conspiracy" so much as it is a self-inflicted wound that it is not too late to treat and heal.

(Susan Estrich is a professor of Law and Political Science at the University of Southern California Law Center. A best-selling author, lawyer and politician, as well as a teacher, she first gained national prominence as national campaign manager for Dukakis for President in 1988.)

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 428

What a strong motive for man who knows the truth but won't come to Jesus

To The Daily Sun,

Dave Pollak, in his letter of Aug. 19, pretty much gives the standard line as to why the theory of evolution should be taught in the classroom as science. And that competing faith-based theories should be taught in theology class. It sounds like a reasonable explanation on the surface, but it's really a sham.

If you teach the theory of evolution as the truth in science class and the way it is presented is as though it is as established as Newtonian physics. Science by the way is a mandatory class. Then you teach say, the "creation myth" in theology class, if perhaps some students sign up for it. Which do you think our children are going to grow up believing is true, regardless if it's true or not. They will believe that evolution is true because their teachers and text books say it is.

Nowhere in their training are they made known of the spiritual roots of this so-called science, of Darwin's writing of how he found the Christian doctrine of eternal damnation of sinners repulsive, or his theological discussions with the captain of Beagle on his now famous voyage. Then you can imagine the discomfort that this seminary trained naturalist must have felt studying God's creation and being reminded, by the very object of his study, of the Creator God from whom this situation that all men must come to terms with flows from; this truth that is suppose to lead one to Jesus and salvation.

What a strong motive for a man who knows the truth and will not come to Jesus, for finding some imagined mechanism, that is: that the changes in living creatures that we see from generation to generation continue without bound, to explain nature without this God. This is one of the main sources of the artificial construct in science that remains to this day that says in the study of our human history, and that of our world it is off limits to consider God and that science is the venue which exercises the ultimate authority in this study. These assumptions constitute an artificial construct which at its core is atheism. (I will not consider Charles Lyell and "The Principles of Geology" at this time.)

This is hugely different than not considering God in the study of nature in the present, as was the case with Copernicus, Kepler, Newton and Galileo. This is hugely different than the Copernican revolution that you liken it to. Galileo was in rebellion to the pope, a man, who was wrong about a peripheral issue concerning Christianity, if he indeed held to the Ptolemaic theory as true. But, the theory of evolution is in rebellion to God for it says that God has not acted throughout history, and he has. God's action in history is an essential truth that is at the core of the Christian faith, that God is alive and that he acts in our lives and that He has done so throughout history.

What this means in terms of education is that we are by design raising a generation of young atheists and agnostics. May I remind you that public education is mandatory. Only those students whose parents can afford private schooling can escape it. (Praise God that there are some school choice programs that help alleviate this.) I have yet to meet a supporter of teaching the theory of evolution in our schools who will meet this issue head on.

At this point you will probably come back at me with the idea that the theory of evolution is merely following the evidence. But if you look at its history this is categorically untrue. It begins with Darwin acknowledging the lack of evidence, presenting his best argument (his claim) to be his doubt of the predestination of stones, a theological argument. It was then sold to the public through a series frauds and hoaxes, and peer pressure. The study of biological evolution and anthropology, in addition to this, did not progress by following the evidence, but it was driven in the direction of evolution. This is what the history of evolution tells us. This is quite a different story than that which evolutionist will have you believe. What this endeavor has verifiably brought us is a study in variation in kind. What they try to ram down our throats is the amoeba to man theory, which no matter how impossible it has been for this to happen they must approve because of their rebellion towards God. If God is out of the picture then evolution must have happened. With the Creator there is no need for it.

As to my comment on ring species, that was a hypothetical. I'm sorry if that was not clear. But responding to your comments concerning this, if I am understanding this correctly the monkeys in the study that you present are all still monkeys. It is a leap of faith to go from that study, to dinosaurs to birds.

As to freedom of inquiry within the evolutionary paradigm. In this you seem to be naive. This letter is already fairly long. If you wish to discuss this further, I'd be glad to explore that with you in a later exchange.

John Demakowski

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 303