The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Life of the Party

3.9.07 @ 12:01AM

(Page 3 of 6)

Fact is one's views regarding abortion don't matter nearly much as that person's ability to recognize true constructionists. What matters is that the President appoints originalists to the bench who will see abortion for what it is -- a complete violation of the Constitution. Hell, one only needs to read the preamble to see this. How does one secure the blessing of liberty to posterity when you kill that posterity in the womb?

Even our beloved Ronald Reagan -- arguably the staunchest critic of our abortion policy -- gave us O'Connor. A heck of a lot of good that did.

With the exception of the O'Connor appointment and the run from Beirut -- although in his defense he had larger issues to conquer at the time -- you'll never hear me mention a bad word about the great man, just for clarification.

But the point is, you're not going to get abortion thrown back to the states and then the slow crawl to extinction -- in large part -- unless you've got someone who will make sure their Supreme Court appointment is for real.

You should be for Rudy, because he'll win. He won't take away our guns; if his word means anything, and I believe it does, he'll appoint originalists to the bench; he'll advocate and fight for supply-side tax reform; and he'll attack Islamic fascism like there's no tomorrow.

You've got a better candidate? Bring him to the table, please.
-- Brent Vondera

Daniel Allott communicates excellent points in this article. However, while the argument that pro-life conservatives will not support Rudy might be true now, if Rudy wins the nomination, that should change. I've always been unconvinced by just such single-issue arguments and believe that voters generally find themselves holding their noses and supporting the candidate that they least object to on principled grounds. I believe that those who do not vote because of such single-issue principles should move elsewhere to find their utopia.
-- J. W. Eilert, Jr.
Wooster, Ohio

HIT MITT
Re: Philip Klein's When Romney Attacks:

What a hit piece on Romney!

Two days after you run pieces on how he won the CPAC poll you announce that his plight is desperately hopeless and his only option left is to attack everyone else. From what I could learn from you article he is pointing out differences between his positions and his opponents. He's not saying bad things about their heritage (like has been done to him), he's not chasing down Giuliani's Italian mafia relatives or making personal judgments about McCain. Attacking is not the same as differentiating. Instead of running an attack add of your own on Romney, try to hold to conservative positions and not liberal tactics.
-- Rob Andrus
Provo, Utah

Mr. Klein accuses Mr. Romney of "going negative" and of "taking the low road." Let us be clear. Presidential candidates have been "going negative" almost since the time of George Washington's accession to that office. Any time that any candidate says that he would be better on any particular issue than the other guy, by definition, he is going negative. Furthermore, Mr. Klein fails to demonstrate, in his screed, where Mr. Romney has been wrong regarding the stances of his opponents. Some would say that is not "going negative," it is just presenting the facts regarding one's opponent.

Mr. Klein also accuses Mr. Romney of being disingenuous, the old flip flopper charge. Now there is some validity to that argument. I would also avow that Mr. Klein is being disingenuous and even devious in not prefacing his article with a disclaimer stating his endorsement of one of Mr. Romney's challengers. Surely Mr. Klein does not expect that we have completely forgotten his previous articles in this venue within the last few weeks. Now I don't know if Mr. Klein is officially on the payroll of his preferred candidate, but that hardly seems to be a significant difference to me. It depends on what the definition of "is" is, Mr. Klein, and you are doing a masterfully Clintonesque job of splitting the "disingenuous" hair. Have you been taking lessons from the Bubba Bill school of political discourse?

Nothing I have said above should be taken as any endorsement of Mr. Romney. I don't know who I will support, and I have serious questions about all three front runners, and most of the others also. That said, Mr. Klein's article would be more honest if it were identified as the campaign ad that it is.
-- Ken Shreve
New Hampshire

FAMILY MAN
Re: The Washington Prowler's Family Feud:

While it is quite commendable that "Sam Brownback has been running on a platform of saving the family from a culture of death and depravity for months," it is not true that Mitt Romney has just recently "discovered" the family issue. Mitt is one of the most family-orientated leaders in America. While he may have been emphasizing other major campaign topics, almost all major political issues affect the well-being of the family. Mitt shows his well-rounded, comprehensive approach to strengthening families. I took the following off his website to show Mitt's great regard for the importance of strong families:

Governor Romney: "What is the culture of this country, what are our underpinnings? We respect hard work....We are self-reliant, we respect human life, we are a religious people...We are a purpose-driven people founded on the family unit. I think every child deserves to have a mother and a father."
(Union Leader, March 19, 2006)

This comment (like so many before) was made a year ago, so it's not fair to say Mitt has recently "discovered" the family issue. From what I've read, he's been working all his life to support strong families in his personal, religious, and political life.
-- David Vilt

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Taxes, Education, Entitlements, Islam, Abortion, Environment, Global Warming, Constitution, Law, Supreme Court, Iraq, Fascism, Conservatism, Immigration