The American Spectator

Reader Mail

(Page 3 of 15)

br> -- D.J. Wilbur /p>

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.

p>And the biggest outrage of the article; "Kerry has enough aristocratic starch... that he may be able to stand up for his country." Huh?? The same man who sold out his country during the Vietnam war? The same man who repeatedly voted against almost every new weapon system? The same man who voted against funding the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq? The same man who now exploits lies about missing explosives in Iraq for political advantage? Are we talking about the same Kerry? br> -- Tom Cook br> Raleigh, North Carolina /p>

I must admit, as much as it would be cathartic to rage and storm at a Kerry win, I must agree with Mr. Tucker that the best thing will be to let John Kerry do his job. Yes, we will have an unprincipled egoist in the White House (again), but we will also have a re-invigorated Republican Congress to keep him on his toes and make sure that he doesn't take the country off the deep end. And once the specter of Cowboy George fades from the electorate's collective mind (6 months), people will begin to realize that maybe their vote for "anyone but Bush" was perhaps not the wisest choice they ever made.

Worried about judges? Don't be. If the Democrats can hold up the judges they dislike then Republicans can certainly do the same, and with more legitimacy, seeing as how they hold the majority of seats in the Senate. Besides, it appears that Congress is beginning to feel its Constitutional oats as far as the judiciary is concerned. The passage in the House of a bill limiting the court's jurisdiction on matters concerning the Pledge of Allegiance is a promising sign that Congress is willing to rein in the reign of judges.

p>Concerned about big government? Not a problem. If fiscal conservatism was a religion, then the Republicans will find Jesus pretty quickly in a Kerry presidency. The single fact of being an opposition party will pit the Republicans against the vast majority of Kerry's spending proposals. In short: Don't worry, be happy. If Kerry wins, there is four years of fun and partisan hijinks to look forward to. Let's run with it and have fun.

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