Mr. Black, Your criticism of Republicans trying to do away with the filibuster to stop Dems from blocking judge appointments does not tell the full story ["Page Two," Jan. 14]. You forgot to mention that that no one, Democrat or Republican, has ever used the filibuster to stall or block an appointment vote in the history of our government. As far as the Hollywood elite goes, I think you have missed the point as well. You can not claim that some actors and celebs such as Sean Penn, George Clooney, Whoopi Goldberg, the Dixie Chicks, and several others did not suffer some, at least short term, consumer backlash after using their celebrity status to state their political disdain with the Bush administration. Surely you must admit that Michael Moore probably did more harm than good to the Democratic Party with his biased documentary? Many polls have shown the film actually earned Bush more votes. The film motivated more conservatives to get out and vote. I think Moore drove away some of the more central members of the Democratic Party who were dismayed by how far left and radical he made the party look. I see faults in both parties. I happened to see more stability and sense with the Republicans this time out. My family has been Democrats for a very long time, and they think I am crazy for voting Republican. I just do not see the traditional Democratic Party of yesteryear. Zell Miller is probably one of the last examples of the type of Democrat I am talking about. I dare to say that if LBJ were alive today he would be a Republican.
Sincerely, Ty Wilson
[Louis Black responds: I just want to be clear on this. Since the filibuster (which was effectively used to block civil rights legislation without being abolished) has never been used to block appointments, and it now is – that makes it OK to abolish it? It's better to get rid of traditional checks and balances within the Senate than to allow the blocking of appointments? My point was that while the real elite continued to run the country, the so-called liberal elite were taking the heat and that by targeting them the right was really targeting free speech. Evidently you agree with me by pointing out that by simply exercising their right as Americans to speak out they suffered some damage. My clarifier would be that this damage was really stoked by politicians, pundits, and talk show hosts inciting listeners rather than from genuine outrage. One who finds Republicans sensible would just assume I'd have to think like them. I disagree with you on Michael Moore.]