ARMEY DISMANTLED
Re: The Prowler’s Armey
Ambushed:
During his tenure as Majority Leader, I tended to agree with
Dick Armey’s views on the issues, but felt he was not a
particularly gifted spokesman or representative for the Republican
cause.
That said, I take issue with your headline “Armey Ambushed.”
Yes, it sounds like people within the party were playing hardball.
But reading between the lines, it looks like they in doing so,
their weapon was the truth. You write, “Scott Armey found himself
having to admit he caused an auto accident in 1982. His prior
statements had indicated he was not at fault.”
Sounds to me as if Scott Armey was less than truthful in earlier
characterizations of his involvement in the accident. If he had
been frank in the first place, the accident might well not have
been an issue. So rather than blaming the messenger, perhaps he and
his father should look in the mirror.
— Mark Finkelstein
Ithaca, NY
Please get some facts before engaging in the Armey family’s pity
party and conspiracy theory politics. News of Scott Armey’s
20-year-old accident was leaked? That “bombshell” has been in
papers here, off and on, for 20 years. His arrogance and refusal to
take responsibility for what was clearly his fault says a lot about
his character, or lack of same. And, he had no insurance, somehow
having missed out on all the notifications that coverage was about
to, and then after nonpayment of the premium, expire. But not that
any of this was HIS fault, you understand. And who leaked the fact
that little Scott has never had a “real” job? He has been enmeshed
in county politics up to his neck, and some of it is shady and
self-serving. Are we as Republicans supposed to close our eyes to
this sort of thing and send him to Congress when he already appears
to be enough of a crook at home? Forget the “leak” theory and be
thankful that the great unwashed still know bad character when they
see it. Isn’t that what we disdained for eight years of the Clinton
administration?
— L. Simon
You know, I’d feel a lot more sorry for the Armeys, father and son,
if they hadn’t done such a stupid thing.
Did they actually think that they could keep Scott’s guilt in
causing a car accident a secret until after the election. That is
just the sort of thing that comes out at the least opportune time;
just like GWB’s drunk driving incident.
At least Scott didn’t lose the actual election, just the
primary. I don’t know anything about politics in Texas, but
generally I prefer a Republican to a Democrat. Shouldn’t Dick Armey
prefer the same?
— M.C. Warner
THIS BUD’S FOR DAVE
Re Dave Shiflett’s Mo
Needs a Man:
Dave Shiflett certainly hits the nail on the head! I too read
Ms. Maureen Dowd-y, almost in protest, simply because, damn it, she
sometimes really can write.
This particular screed of hers was the first one in recent
memory where she wasn’t bashing the Bushies or Rummy but was
instead almost making sense. Leave it to Mr. Shiflett to point out
where I was wrong.
Keep up the good work!
— Bob Johnson
Bedford, Texas
Dave’s article about Miz Dowd had me in hysterics. I have had the
same argument about “strong” women with some of my feminist
acquaintances and made the same arguments Dave did — but not
nearly as elegantly as Dave.
Dave — you’re the best, bud.
— Steve Currence
Denver, CO
Mo don’t need no man. She does need to spend about a year as a
topless mud wrestler at some local shake and wiggle parlor. She’ll
get a real look at life as it really is.
— unsigned
A FEW GOOD CPA’S …
Re: Michael Craig’s The
Stench of a Snitch:
A re-creation of a scene from the movie “A Few Good Men”…
Tom Cruise: “Did you order the shredding?”
Jack Nicholson: “You want answers?”
Tom Cruise: “I think I’m entitled.”
David Duncan (played by Jack Nicholson): “You want
answers!!”
Tom Cruise: “I want the truth!”
David Duncan: “You can’t handle the truth!
David Duncan: “Son, we live in a world that has financial
statements. And those financial statements have to be audited by
men with calculators. Who’s gonna do it? You? The SEC? The Dept. of
Justice? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly
fathom. You weep for Enron and you curse Andersen. You have that
luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that
Enron’s death, while tragic, probably saved investors. And my
existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves
investors. You don’t want the truth. Because deep down, in places
you don’t talk about at parties, you want me on that audit. You
need me on that audit! We use words like materiality, risk-based,
special purpose entity… we use these words as the backbone to a
life spent auditing something. You use ‘em as a punch line. I have
neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who
rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very assurance I provide,
then questions the manner in which I provide it. I’d prefer you
just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you
pick up a pencil and start ticking. Either way, I don’t give a damn
what you think you’re entitled to!!”
Tom Cruise: “Did you order the shredding???”
David Duncan: “You’re damn right I did!”
— Blaise Rhodes
Michael Craig replies: Bravo to Mr. Rhodes.
Unfortunately, you won’t see Jack Nicholson portraying an auditor
in a movie any time soon.
SUN SHINE
Re: R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.’s Here
Comes Seth Lipsky’s ‘Sun’:
On the upcoming right-of-center NYC broadsheet The New York Sun:
This is really good news, particularly in terms of editorials. The
application of conservative ideas to NYC problems sheds special
light on both. NYC problems tend to be both highly tangled and
buried beneath liberal understanding of them, which tends to
consist in the latest of successive strata of failed ideas. When a
conservative voice on NYC problems gets heard (and even heeded once
in a while!) in NYC, then, because of NYC’s influence, it’s
ultimately a little better for the whole country. That’s why some
of us in NYC (where I lived until recently) were so happy with Eric
Breindel writing editorials for the NY Post: the right man for a
job more important than many realized. And many in NYC who’ve
ignored the NY Post as a racy tabloid will not so easily ignore a
broadsheet Sun edited by Seth Lipsky. Yes, let us wish the Sun
every success.
— Benjamin Udell
FATALE RATE
Re: Jeff G. Dufour’s and Reader Mail’s What
Women Don’t Want:
As a woman and mother of 3 grown sons my question for Carrie Sue
Casey is, “Is she nuts?” Feminism may have started out asking that
women be respected and thought of as people with brains and
certainly more than chattel. But when Bill Clinton is forgiven by
these same feminists for all his philandering ways because he is
the “alpha male” the fight for respect and mentality of women has
just gone down the drain. As does the respect for women in the eyes
of men.
She writes of the bad and bawdy jokes of women. She should be a
man — there are at least 3 or 4 moron jokes of men for every bad
one of women. As for the Playboy models — I have a sneaky thought
that she could never have made it onto their pages. Neither could
I, but I don’t either condemn nor praise them — it’s just flat out
their business. As for the men who buy these magazines (and if my
sons do, I’m not aware of it), so what?
And men only “gravitate toward the largest breasts” before they
mature. If Mr. Dufour disagrees with that — my question is with
him — not all men. Mature men look for the deeper and more
meaningful aspects of a woman when they seek a mate. As for the
rest — I think of it as all as growing up.
I think Ms. Casey and Mr. Dufour have not reached that point
yet.
For the record, I read the classics.
Thank you.
— Marilyn Jameson
Pittsburgh, PA
“Pandering to the fundamental ideal of typical masculinity”?? As
defined by whom, a feminist?
Men used to think that it is important to have a career to
support a woman (as opposed to assuming “dual” income) that he
wanted to marry (as opposed to live with) and the family he wished
to have with her (as opposed to deciding who will pay for the
abortion because “we” are not ready yet).
Carrie Sue Casey laments the content of these magazines and
men’s minds in general, yet feminism and its zeal for sexual
freedom for women with birth control, and abortion on demand, has
created a society where many women do not have a sense of
self-respect; so why should men?
— M. Heisler
Columbus, OH
CIRCUMCISION CONSERVATISM
Re: R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.’s No
More Hooded Look:
As a devout conservative, I wish to debate the assertion that
the “anti-circumcision movement” is liberal-driven.
Okay, I’ll admit that groups like NoCirc and ACM are radical —
I am unable to say “radical liberal” because I don’t know enough
about their roots, but they are, indeed, radical. But I would argue
that the basic surgical philosophy of advising against circumcision
is completely conservative at its core.
Circumcision is a cosmetic procedure with little or no
significant medical advantage (hygiene is the only claimed benefit,
and that is subject to some disagreement based on interpretation of
data). Your citation of the New England Journal is old news, and,
again, reflects issues related to hygiene. Culturally in this
country, men who are not circumcised (because of their age or
ethnicity) have typically been raised in ways that fail to
emphasize proper hygiene. Circumcised men can also get papilloma
virus and can also pass it on, increasing the partner’s risk of
cancer.
Circumcision is often performed on newborn infants who have no
say in the decision whether to have his appearance altered in this
way.
I suggest that any reasonable conservative should attempt to
hold the line against cosmetic surgery being imposed upon the
unwitting.
Don’t get me wrong — as a pediatrician for 25 years, I do
between three and five circumcisions per week. I long since gave up
trying to talk parents out of it (it doesn’t work). But if I had
another son today (my son was born when I was a naïve medical
student, and he IS circumcised), I would not have the procedure
done again. I think my rationale for that decision comes basically
from my conservative point of view.
Additionally, I know a few other conservative pediatricians (a
rare breed, we) — all agree and all for the same reasons.
Admittedly, some of my liberal colleagues also believe routine
newborn circumcision is wrong, but their reasons don’t seem to be
the same.
By the way, scripturally (I am also an ordained minister) the
New Testament church has clearly been exempted us from the legal
responsibility to be circumcised that had been imposed upon the Old
Testament Jews.
My only reason for raising this debate is that, I fear, your
comments may cause your conservative readers to believe that having
their own sons circumcised is the “conservative” choice. In my
view, it is not.
— B. Paul Choate, M.D.
Colorado Springs, CO
HEAVY MEDAL
Re: Reader Mail’s Mean
Machine:
I’m amused at Pat Lhota’s complaints about the efforts of one
wealthy man to expose the hypocrisy of the legions of limousine
Leftists who use our allegedly “mainstream” media outlets to
demonize conservatives and present their illiberal brand of
“liberalism” as nothing more than what any decent human being would
believe in.
If indeed Mr. Scaife is singlehandedly putting the Left to rout,
I say he deserves a medal.
— Kevin M. McGehee
Coweta County, GA
