The American Spectator

/p>

This article firmly focuses our attention to the unintended consequences of what happens when folks with good intentions decide to take their marbles and go home at exactly the wrong time.

As a timely example, I have been in an e-mail conversation with Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily. His latest column, “Why Dr. Dobson’s right,” is Exhibit 1 to the argument Mr. Lord made in his TAS article. Mr. Farah, whom many would describe as an uber-conservative, is of the same opinion as Dr. Dobson. Collectively, and in a Stepford fashion, they will sit on their hands come November of next year and not pull a lever or fill an oval, if a “not-exactly-a-pure-conservative” candidate is chosen as the Republican nominee.

p>Admittedly, both have a large following. But why they would take their respective flocks over the proverbial cliff over one issue that has been locked-in legally by the same crowd is a mystery (kudos to Mr. Lord for pointing that out). If I’m hungry, I’ll grab half a loaf every single time. If one waits for the full loaf, mold sets in very quickly. br> — Owen H. Carneal br> Yorktown, Virginia /p>

Mr. Lord has delivered a timely salvo across the bow of social conservatives, myself included. We can use numerous metaphors, but the bottom line is that the goals of social conservatism will be absolutely unachievable with another Clinton presidency. Mr. Lord could have also reminded us of the steps taken by Bill Clinton on the very first day of his presidency to roll back all gains that conservatives had made during the Reagan and Bush administrations concerning abortion. We will see President-elect Clinton demanding that W. start rolling recent gains back even before she takes office. Embryonic stem cell research will see every constraint removed on January 20th, 2009. Don’t ask, don’t tell will also be gone that day. Hillary will take time out of the Inaugural festivities to sign those Executive Orders. She may even sign them as soon as she takes her hand off the Bible. And all because we can’t have the “full loaf.”

p>I can support Giuliani if he gets the nomination. Or Thompson, or McCain. Why? Because the unborn aren’t the only people we should be pro-life about. How about the rest of us, including our children, when Hillary starts surrendering in the War on Terror? A couple of nuclear bombs going off in our cities would be equal in numbers to a couple of years of abortions. A few years ago, I was where Dr. Dobson was when it came to pro-life issues. I was even ready to withdraw my support from W. if he didn’t put restrictions on embryonic stem cell research. But 9/11 changed everything and I realized that there are other life-and-death issues out there. So I implore social conservatives to campaign very hard for their preferred candidate, but accept the eventual GOP nominee, no matter who it is. Another Clinton White House would be merciless…especially to the unborn. br> — Andrew Macfayden, M.D. /p>

Thank you, Mr. Lord, for your much needed political wisdom. It needs to be repeated a year from now, in bold letters. Your article stands in stark juxtaposition to today’s Reader’s Section, and some of the “value voters,” vowing to insure a Hillary Clinton presidency. Fortunately, Michael Tomlinson, once again, brought some wise, real world perspective to all this.

p>I sincerely respect you “value voters,” I really do, but I find myself increasingly frustrated with your myopic sense of moral superiority. It’s how I feel about most leftists, however, I know you folks are far more sincere and principled. I guess what I can’t comprehend is if a less than perfect conservative, vows to insure a Supreme Court made up of “originalists,” why then would you accede to a hard-core Leftist that is DEVOTED to the antithesis of all that you believe in? Yes, I’ve read ad nauseam about how you folks view compromise of principle. Problem is, the left believes in “the end justifies the means,” and will compromise principle to insure a Justice Ginsburg, and her devotion to the leftist cause, especially