The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Dishwasher Gate

10.29.07 @ 12:01AM

(Page 3 of 4)

As for the former Pastor, he was a great preacher that could communicate God's message to where it could be understood by all. I know that many people came to know Christ as their personal Savior because of this one man. Yes, the Pastor fell from grace, but that is the beauty of having a risen Savior, all of us have sinned and fallen short, but we can be redeemed through our Savior, Christ Jesus. I believe my once fallen Pastor can and will be forgiven just as Mr. Henry's pastor will be.
-- Lee Schafer
New Caney Texas

Lawrence Henry's fine essay, "What Happened," reminds us while we can find God in our circumstances, we must serve others in theirs.
-- LeRoy Hurt

ENDLESS CHILDHOOD
Re: Christopher Orlet's Forever Young:

I couldn't make heads or tails out of Christopher Orlet's review of Diana West's book -- except either he or she dislikes old geezers riding Harleys. And it's true that across our nation older folks are indulging themselves with expensive and unnecessary toys. Was that the intended message? Yes, affluence is a terrible thing.

Or, maybe West or Orlet object to the flaunting which goes with the lifestyles of "Demon Grannies" and "Hell's Grandpas." Not only do these big Harleys start around 15 thousand, but then hundreds of additional dollars are wasted on leathers, boots and after-market exhaust pipes to replace the quiet, factory installed pipes. I could point out that even large bikes average 38 miles per gallon, while the smaller ones average 55 miles per gallon. But, I don't think Orlet meant older folks shouldn't drive fuel-efficient vehicles.

We should "act our age" -- whatever that means since neither West or Orlet bother to define that particular dictum. And, thanks for the tip about the popularity of Cartoon Network, but does any adult with an IQ over 80 actually watch CNN? Among the statistics Orlet didn't quote was the number of kids put through college by us irresponsible oldsters, the welfare and charity programs funded, the communities built -- in fact, all the tax money and discretionary income spent on someone other than ourselves.

Next January, the leading edge of 79 million Boomers will begin to enter retirement. By 2030, 60% of the federal budget will be needed to support retirees within an American population where those over 65 constitute a full 20%. But where will the untold billions come from to pay for the care of these aging Hog riders? I suspect the money won't be there in the future, it certainly isn't there now. Faced with the inevitable bankruptcy of Social Security, maybe the only meaningful consolation is to get on your Harley and ride.
-- Patrick Skurka
San Ramon, California

One group of Americans is bucking the trend personified by an aging and irrelevant Bill Clinton, perpetual adolescents and irresponsibility, the volunteers of the United States military who make possible the gutless and juvenile behavior of at least a plurality of Americans.
-- Chaplain Michael Tomlinson
1st Battalion 2d Marines
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina

IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES?
Re: Jeffrey Lord's Dr. Dobson and Justice Bork:

As a fiscal and social conservative, I too am conflicted about the political choices we face in the near future. I have read with interest the numerous comments concerning statements made by Dr. James Dobson. While I recognize that no candidate nominated by any party will perfectly embody every principle each individual feels is important, does this mean no one should set priorities to determine which issues are non-negotiable? To all those who have chosen to harshly criticize social conservatives for making the issue of life the top priority, why would you assume that a given candidate, especially one whose record shows a consistent disregard for the life of the unborn deserves to be the standard bearer for other life and death issues? If said candidate believes that one segment of the population does not deserve protection, how can we be sure there aren't other groups that would fail to pass muster according to his arbitrary standards? Just because a potential candidate makes a promise to appoint conservative judges, does that guarantee he will remain true to his word? How many times have so-called principled men reneged on campaign promises and opted instead for political expediency?

I find it interesting that only ones being asked to fall on their swords to preserve unity in the Republican Party are social conservatives. They are expected to abandon their highest principles and do their part to defeat the dreaded Hun; all at the urging of their conservative brethren for whom the specter of a Hillary Clinton led administration is the equivalent of hell on earth. It seems to me that Republicans have lost just as much credibility with voters because they abandoned their first principles in important areas such as: failing to curb profligate spending, offering amnesty instead of real immigration reform and their mismanagement of the war in Iraq. Why aren't the bean counters tallying the number of potential votes lost because of the party's dereliction in these areas? Why are those so concerned about the stance taken by James Dobson not decrying similar stands taken by those who have left the fold because of the party's other betrayals of conservatism and imploring them to remain loyal?

It is clear to me that the majority of the readers of TAS who have chosen to render an opinion regarding the recent remarks made by Dr. Dobson are persuaded that if a significant number of values voters bolt the Republican party, the Democrats are sure to win in 2008. That may be true but, according to all the polling information I've seen, Hillary Clinton leads all Republicans, even the darling of a lot of conservatives, Rudy Giuliani by a significant margin. Granted, it's too early to make any predictions about an election still over a year away, but I think Republicans have a lot of work to do within their own ranks to shore up their tarnished image and win back the trust of those who now feel disenfranchised. Finger pointing and making one faction the scapegoat for a defeat that has yet to occur seems to me to be counter-productive to that goal.

Some think that we must be prepared to accept a half-a-loaf approach to this year's election. My question to them is: How much mediocrity are we willing to accept just because some among us are quaking in their boots at the thought of Hillary Clinton in the White House? Do you really believe this type of alternative is likely to resonate with voters disgusted by the recent failures of the Republican Party and restore their confidence in the GOP? I don't consider the acceptance of a nominee based upon a presumption that he isn't as bad as the other guy to be a ringing endorsement.
-- Rick Arand
Lee's Summit, Missouri

HERE'S REALLY WHY
Re: Paul LaRue's letter (under "Here's Why") in Reader Mail's Banking on Rush:

I do not know Benazir Bhutto, Lech Walesa, or Vaclav Havel. Corazon Cojanco -- of the "coconut Cojangos" -- did not become a "housewife" upon marriage to Aquino, and aside from a failed "land reform" that stole the land of successful individual farmers to buy the votes of the "poor" while protecting the vast estates of the Cojancos did essentially nothing when she achieved power.
-- Paul Nelson

Letter to the Editor

topics:
John McCain, Nancy Pelosi, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Federal Budget, Social Security, Law, Supreme Court, Military, Iraq, Russia, NATO, Conservatism, Immigration