FORGET ABOUT IT
Re: R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.’s End of the
Road:
As for Iowa and New Hampshire putting a zipper on the oafs —
don’t hold your breath.
— Diamon Sforza
San Diego, California
FOREVER YOUNG
Re: Jay Currie’s The
Children’s Hour:
Excellent article for content and entertainment. Makes the point
that, in light of the fact that Bush cannot be taken in 2004, the
real pros of the ‘Crats, e.g. Bill, Hillary, Al, are letting Deanie
Babies have the party for this election … thus to spiral down,
crash and burn. Then in ‘08, with the children chastised, the
“pros” will move in.
Problem is, the ‘Crats are as low on adults as they are on
political moderates. Bill and Al are children for sure: Bill’s
still acting out adolescent horniness. Algore has no idea who in
the world he is. Far as the Rodham is concerned, no matter how old
and mean she progresses, she still calls to mind a snotty,
conniving, pre-teen teacher suck up, who would sell her classmates
into the principal’s office for a red star on her forehead.
— CGP in Monett, Missouri
Your article on the Democrat “Power Brokers” is very telling and
should serve as a wake-up call for the Republicans. It is way past
time for them to be looking at 2008.
Step 1: Have Cheney retire.
Step 2: Name Cheney special adviser to the President.
Step 3: Name Dr. Condoleezza Rice vice president.
Step 4: Have Dr. Rice serve four years and establish her
base.
Step 5: Elect the first black, woman, President, Dr. Rice.
— George R. Shelley
California High School
California, Missouri
Thank you Jay. I agree but there are some facts that can’t be
ignored:
First, the Clintons are going to continue to try to salvage
their name in history through the “smartest woman in the world” —
since the slickest man in the world couldn’t.
Second, Clinton, Gore, and Dean have permanently isolated the
extremists on the left — hence committed them to the Democratic
Party for eternity (if they don’t break off for the Green meanies
— which still costs dems votes), hence identified the Dems as the
leftist party it has been forced to become in this election
cycle.
Third, the “serious” politicians in the Democratic Party have
admitted that it is only power they seek, not consensus. They’ve
lost power as a result of their extremism, now they don’t like it
and claim to want to move us back to the “center” from the
edge.
Finally: Democrats don’t really need to educate their “troops,”
they simply need to scare them senseless, stir them into a frenzy
every time they gather and then let the appearance of Moore,
Moveon, Garafolo et al. prove the quality of their followers.
My personal hope is that Hillary is nominated by acclamation at
the convention, at which time she will be forced to turn down the
nomination (she can’t afford to offend that many angry white men in
her own party) and prove that she knows that she can’t beat
G.W.
By the way, who is she going to “unite” in the Democratic Party
if not the loonies that she and her party have cultured over the
last 30-50 years.
— Stu Margrey
Denton, Maryland
Couple of problems with the political assessment. If Dean ends up
the front runner, even if he loses the general election, he is the
head of the DNC according to party rules. That means the Clinton
crowd (and the rest of the old pros) will not be in control of
party apparatus in ‘08. Given 4 years, the Deanies that infiltrate
the DNC structure could be so entrenched that it makes it hard for
a Hillary run in ‘08.
The other problem is what the political landscape will look like
after ‘04 to ‘08. As things stand now, Bush in, two more seats in
the Senate go Republican (53 total), one or two pickups in the
House for Republicans, possible retention of California as a
Republican state and maybe one more governorship going to the GOP
as well. Now even if Dean is the Lamb of Winter, I see no signs of
the Dems repositioning themselves for a revival at the grass roots
to win back some of the House seats or governorships. By the time
‘08 rolls around the Dems maybe so marginalized that the Big Tent,
all bright and shiny, has many heading for the exits. For what is
the value of a party if it is not to win an election?
And finally, Dean does lose, so what? With the structure he has
in place, he can wrap it up. Put it on a CD and replay again in
‘08. If his is the front-running position this year, there is a
high likelihood he would be positioned to run again in ‘08. Dean
appeals to a generational crowd much younger than what Hillary will
draw to her campaign. Dean may be the anti-Clinton that makes
Hillary’s attempt a near-run thing. And he is certain to be a third
party threat if he isn’t given the chance one more time.
Remember, Hillary and Bill were the “Deanies” of the '60s and
ended up in the White House. I don’t think the “Deanies” of the
'00s will yield so willingly.
— John McGinnis
Arlington, Texas
BELT BACKLASH
Re: Eric Peters’s Buckle Up
for Hillary:
I read Eric Peters’ article against Sen. Hillary Clinton’s
proposed national seat belt law.
Ms. Clinton is correct in my opinion. While it may be true that
it’s your head that is going to be injured without seat belts, it
is I, as taxpayer, who will have to pay if you don’t die from your
injuries.
— Doug Byrd
Statesville, North Carolina
Hogwash. I pay higher insurance rates for every nitwit that
gets
injured — or heaven forbid, killed — in an accident. We have lots
of other “safeguards” in place that protect drivers — air bags,
for example — that are expensive and have negligible impact on
saving lives. At least seat belts DO save lives. Hillary’s right on
this one.
— Charles Walsh
Well then, how about mandatory health insurance so that my tax
dollars don’t go to pay the emergency room costs of treating
uninsured idiots who refuse to wear their seatbelts? I’d far rather
have the government force me to wear a seatbelt than take away my
hard earned money.
— Melissa Herman
I am as much in favor of using seat belts as I am opposed to the
government mandating their usage. There must be a free market
solution to this issue. Why can not insurance policies include a
proviso denying coverage to any victim of an automobile accident
who incurs injury or death while not using a seat belt? If the
evidence is incontrovertible, such as entering eternity through a
windshield, the insurer would not be liable.
— Kenneth Cory
China Township, Michigan
Although I am generally opposed to a lot of strong-armed government
interventions into the area of a person’s life, I must take
exception to a measure to enforce wearing seat belts. I strongly
disagree with Eric Peters’ assertion that not wearing a seat belt
has no negative effect on the safety and well-being of other
drivers. When an unrestrained person is traveling at 60 mph in a
car that comes to an abrupt halt, that person will be out of
control and likely ejected from the car. I have personally observed
such a scenario and seen another car crash trying to avoid the guy
rolling on the asphalt. It was a certainly not a situation confined
merely to the driver not wearing a seat belt.
Also, those who choose not to wear seat belts and are seriously
injured as a result create a lot of unnecessary and expensive
medical problems and higher insurance costs for everyone. Comparing
the real, tangible damage to individuals, families, and society
through the stupidity of choosing not to wear a seat belt to eating
greasy food, smoking, and scuba diving constitutes an absurd and
somewhat juvenile argument. Losing control of a 3,000-pound,
300-horsepower vehicle is a great deal more dangerous to others
than Peters’ silly comparisons.
Peters states: “Primary enforcement of seat belt laws — and
seat belt laws themselves — are less about ‘safety’ and all about
controlling other people.” He is dead wrong in his analysis —
public safety requires control, both on an individual and
collective basis. That is why we require people to prove that they
know how the safely drive a car before getting a license; why
states and municipalities post stop signs, traffic lights, and
speed limits; and why states require that young children be secured
in car seats while traveling on the road.
I have no problem with the police ticketing idiots not wearing
seat belts. It has nothing to do with “personal choice” — just as
I don’t want a 13-year-old “choosing” to race a car around on city
streets, neither do I really want a body flying out of an oncoming
car to become my hood ornament.
— Craig Coulombe
Oakton, Virginia
We’ve had a seat belt law here in California for quite some time
and I don’t find it to be a big deal.
— Nick Putnam
Oakland, California
I am no supporter of Hillary, but I think Eric Peters has
overlooked something in his editorial about federal law requiring
seat belt use. In his article he states, “Wearing or not wearing a
seat belt has no negative effect on the safety and well-being of
other drivers.” I humbly disagree. During evasive maneuvers in his
vehicle, an unbuckled friend of mine was tossed into the passenger
seat when his vehicle went off the road and into the ditch. The
vehicle continued traveling, now undriven until it struck a house
and ended up in someone’s living room where it came to rest. Now,
if my friend had been belted into his seat with his seatbelt, he
would have likely stayed in control of the vehicle, instead of
becoming useless cargo. So, seatbelts DO protect the welfare of
other drivers and pedestrians by ensuring that the driver of a
vehicle will in times of need be able to steer the vehicle, and use
the brake because they will be able to maintain their station in
the vehicle. I think that Mr. Peters would agree that it is tough
to control a vehicle from the passenger seat or the back seat.
— David Law
UMS LAN Support
Seat belt laws are not about “your” freedom. They are about my
taking care of your comatose ass when you go through the
windshield.
— Bob Zola
