The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Kudos and Apologies

7.25.07 @ 12:01AM

(Page 2 of 4)

Both the Tavis Smiley and CNN-You-Tube debates basically closed their eyes to the fate that would come from Surrender, Isolation, and Retreat (SIR).

A forum with audience questions tends to produce self-centered questions. John Roberts crowed positively about that on Sunday with Bill Schneider. They noted how Iraq and immigration were high on some lists of political issues, but low among the questions being submitted for Monday's debate. They called this an emphasis on issues that are "personal." Time's Joe Klein attacked this neglect of Iraq; and he attacked the Time narcissistic mirror cover for Person of the Year.

Tavis Smiley's debate was called mostly self-congratulatory (Howard U congratulating and celebrating itself) by the middle-of-the-road Iowa Press TV talk show. Reporter Mike Glover noted that Iraq and immigration were not discussed, something he considered awful. When a black woman called into C-Span the next day on Washington Journal and brought up immigration, Tavis bullied her by referring three times to the fact that she would not give her name; he said he'd have to call her "anonymous caller." He said immigrants do jobs that blacks and whites won't do. He ignored the fact, for instance, that blacks have been driven out of the hotel industry in parts of the East coast. As one commentator put it: The hotels want illegal immigrants to turn down their sheets and they want rich foreigners to stay at their hotels. I think the reason Smiley avoided and even attacked the very idea of bringing up the immigration issue is that he didn't want to have the differences between blacks and browns even mentioned.

Because of this, I have coined the phrase "pull a Tavis" for suppressing certain issues in a debate.

It has been observed that terrorism was not mentioned in the CNN and YouTube debate. Immigration was mentioned little. A C-Span caller the morning after the debate noted that when a question was actually asked on immigration (Should illegal immigrants get health insurance?), the candidate answering did not actually answer the question.

So CNN and YouTube pulled a Tavis.

And the Democratic candidates are pulling a McGovern.
-- Richard L.A. Schaefer
Dubuque, Iowa

Count me in! The idea of a way to annually look back at the carnage the leftards find so easy to ignore or belie (see recent comments by that fool Jean-Francois Kerry) is inspired! Imagine the parade we can have on 7/24/10 to commemorate "Apologies Day," maybe we can get the MSM to maintain a weekly or monthly body count, similar to the current ghoulish count of Iraq war casualties, maybe Cindy Sheehan can get clearance to leave the sanitarium to say a few words on the behalf of the BDS contingent...

Better yet maybe these morons will get their collective heads out of their collective rear ends.

A great commentary!
-- Stuart Reed
Grosse Pointe Woods, MI

SENATE SMOKER
Re: David Hogberg's Emptying the Humidor:

The title of this article could also be "Searching diligently for Signs of Intelligent Life in the Senate." What idiots these men are. Not only did they not learn the last time around, but day by day they prove they are, indeed, prancing, preening, self-congratulating idiots with high self-esteem incapable of learning the most rudimentary economics lessons.

I give up!
-- Judy Beumler
Louisville, Kentucky

A "luxury tax" is wrong for reasons both practical and ideological reasons. Mr. Hogberg covers the practical (i.e., economical) with great clarity and does not need repeating here (though repeating it on an endless loop subliminal tape for our tax and spend congress might be a worthwhile venture).

The ideological reason against luxury taxes is that it is contrary to the morality of fair taxation. Taxation is not a moral method to change the behavior of citizenry. No, the only morally defensible reason for taxation is to pay the government for services that cannot be provided by any other means. Government has certain responsibilities spelled out in the Constitution. Since the government must provide these services, it must be paid for these services. ("Pay unto Caesar what is due Caesar.") Any taxation beyond the fundamentals is pure thievery. Yes, often it is good hearted (and weak minded) Robin Hood thievery, taking from the rich to give to the poor, but it is still theft. (See Social Security for a shining example.) More often it is Bread and Circus theft, pork barreling, such as the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere," that is used by our representatives to bribe their constituents.

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Taxes, Transportation, Education, Health Care, Economics, Social Security, Islam, Global Warming, Constitution, Law, Founding Fathers, Iraq, Immigration, Energy