The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Tuckered Out

10.29.04 @ 12:01AM

BE NICE TO PRESIDENT KERRY?
Re: William Tucker's A Plea for Democracy

William Tucker: Is this guy for real??
-- Colin McCauley

The other day on the radio Tim Russert, apparently trying to sound balanced and objective, compared the (mendacious) Democratic charge that Bush will bring back the draft with the (muted) Republican inference that Kerry would be a disaster as Commander-in-Chief. Both sides, according to Russert, are guilty of "fearmongering."

Back in the Clinton years, when conservatives were, in Tucker's terminology, "demonizing" Clinton, I don't recall the conservative treatment of the sybaritic buffoon coming close to the manic contumely visited by the Left on the basically decent Bush. And Tucker fully anticipates the Left's behavior to get much worse after Kerry loses.

But if Bush loses, Tucker expects -- even pleads for -- better comportment from conservatives. Fine. But does the expectation warrant distorted comparisons of the Russert variety?

What is there about the Left that gives them such control over the very terms of debate, even among conservatives?
-- John R. Dunlap
San Jose, California

You seem to have forgotten the long term damage that Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton did to this country. Forget about the tax increases on me, a Social Security recipient, and others. Mr. Carter is the father of modern Islamic terrorism. Ayatollah Khomeini walked in and formed a terrorist state right under his nose and he did nothing, then there were the hostages, held for 444 days by these people. The President can make us an impotent country, Carter sure did.

Bill Clinton, among other things, gave nuclear materials to North Korea, allowing them to build nuclear weapons. Yes, I know It was suppose to be for generating electricity. And I know Madeleine Albright was shocked, shocked to realize that the Communists in Korea LIED to her!.

Mr. Kerry is a traitor to this country has no allegiance to the United States and is a Globalist. If Mr. Kerry wins, I suggest we do everything we can, as Republicans, to stand in Kerry's way. Mr. Kerry's statement that it's OK for American soldiers to die for the United Nations but not for the United States, is reason enough to oppose him at every turn. Have you completely lost your mind?
-- Steve Dufau
Fountain Valley, California

Should Kerry win and we start loudly criticizing his administration and declare it to be a miserable failure after an appropriate period of time, say, 24 hours, we are only being patriotic. That's what has been drilled into my head for the past 2 years: DISSENT IS PATRIOTIC! And at about that decibel level, too. Besides, Kerry's the boy genius who has all the answers for a stronger America and a better tomorrow. His promises to fight a smarter war against terrorists, create jobs, bring bowling scores way up and mini-golf scores way down are seared, SEARED!, into my memory. Anyway, I wouldn't really worry about conservatives being sore losers. What you should really worry about is that if W. wins, we will be sore winners. Heh, heh, heh!
-- Andrew J. Macfadyen, M.D.
Omaha, Nebraska

The thoughts in this article are good. They would also be acceptable if John Kerry were not John Kerry. You are, however, overlooking the fact that the terrorists want to destroy us. John Kerry's history and current constant lies lead to the obvious conclusion that we will not be safe with him as President. If he is elected, you stay and maintain calm and peace and think happy thoughts. If he is elected, I will move to Australia which has recently proven that they understand the threat under which we exist now and which will take necessary actions to protect its citizens. John Kerry will not.
-- D.J. Wilbur

I was speechless after reading William Tucker's piece this morning. While the basic premise may be correct (that conservatives should not behave in the same way as the anti-American grubs infesting our country), the statements about John Kerry and Bill Clinton are incredibly wrong.

First, the Clintons demonized themselves -- they needed no help from anyone else. Nobody went snooping around their sex lives. It wasn't about sex. It was about sexual harassment and lying under oath in front of a grand jury. This activity was punished by stiff fines and the loss of Bill's law license, proof of criminal activity, not right-wing payback for bad dating habits.

Second, "reasonably well governed" is difficult to swallow when you credit a balanced budget against failing to recognize a real and growing terrorist threat. It's easy to raise taxes, not so easy to take a stand against a web of terrorists when Yasser Arafat is sleeping in the Lincoln bedroom. Suggesting that this oversight has now been corrected is naive. Stopping this war in its tracks in 1993 is a long way from starting to win the war in 2001. And that Clinton prosperity you mention seems to have been nothing more than a high tech market bubble which burst well before George Bush even won the primary, only to be well covered up until after the election was over.

Third, a Republican control of Congress (not assured at this point in the Senate) is only beneficial if fighters like Gingrich are around. Right now we can't even get a judicial nomination through, thanks to the current leadership.

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Taxes, Foreign Policy, Bill Clinton, Mainstream Media, Business, Social Security, Religion, Catholicism, Islam, Constitution, Law, Supreme Court, Iraq, United Nations, NATO, North Korea, Conservatism, Nuclear Weapons, Oil