The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Mind Your Manners

10.31.07 @ 12:01AM

(Page 2 of 5)

Mason and Felder wrote: "A basic tenet of the role science has in a free society is that the government does not direct science or instruct scientists where their quests must lead; that scientists are free to explore and search for truth, whether that truth is convenient, politically correct, contradicts government policy, or runs contrary to the sentiments of the day. Truth is truth, whether you like it or not and agree with its existence."

This is not the standard of the Bush administration on several issues.
-- Mike Roush
North Carolina

THE CAMEL'S NOSEBLEED
Re: Peter Hannaford's The Camel's Nosebleed:

Forget the camel's nosebleed. How about my kid's nosebleed from the punch-in-the-face administered by the Democrats? You know, the one with broken cartilage that I cannot get fixed at the doctor's office because my wallet is empty from paying those higher taxes due to the costs of an expanded SCHIP program (yes, it will happen -- they can tax only so many long-term smokers).

First of all, President Bush gave the wrong reason for his initial veto (the high cost of $35B+). His reasoning should have been that there is no article or clause in the U.S. Constitution that allows the program. No matter that it was established by the Republicans in 1997; it should never have existed in the first place.

This program is called the "State" Children's Health Insurance Program. What part of the word "State" does Congress not understand? One would think that a program with the word "State" in the title would actually be run and funded by the "States", not the federal government. And even that smacks of nanny-statism to us libertarian-leaning individuals. Getting back on task, doesn't the 10th Amendment direct that the powers not given the fed will be reserved for the states and the people, respectively?

Lastly, when poor folks are defined as having income levels approaching $40,000, or even $61,900, or when "children" are defined as approaching the age of 25 years, doesn't the effort in question just smack as a vote-buying scheme. The Dems have only two goals for the next eight years: nationalize all aspects of our lives and retain or, better yet (to them), expand their power base in D.C.

Give me a hanky -- I'll take care of my kid's nose myself.
-- Owen H. Carneal
Yorktown, Virginia

NO RONALD REAGAN
Re: Richard Viguerie's letter (under "Conservatives and Roe") in Reader Mail's Richard Viguerie Weighs In:

Richard Viguerie should be one of the last people in the world to invoke the name of Ronald Reagan to bolster his case. Viguerie was a harsh and constant critic of President Reagan during his eight years in office. Gadfly Viguerie went so far as to compare the Gipper to Jimmy Carter!!!

It is not surprising that he disagrees with Jeffrey Lord when, like 2006, he was a major contributor to Democrat victory in 1986. Criticism of a conservative Republican President is nothing new for Richard Viguerie so his vitriol against President Bush that benefits Democrats is no surprise.

If Mrs. Bill Clinton finds herself undeservedly residing in the White House after the 2008 Presidential election she will owe Richard Viguerie and his type of "conservatives" a big thank you for their help. If individuals like Pat Buchanan and Richard Viguerie are the future of the conservative movement Democrats can rest easy as they appease terrorists, raise taxes and promote their radical social agenda.
-- Michael Tomlinson
Jacksonville, North Carolina

Jeffrey Lord comments: "I do blame conservatives for walking into a general election voting booth ... knowing something as important as Roe v. Wade is at stake... and deliberately taking a pass because the GOP candidate is imperfect."

What Mr. Lord is criticizing is actually a moral stand. Unlike Liberalism, conservatism is not a religion. Protestantism and Catholicism are. If both main candidates are unchristian in their outlook then a vote for either of them will rightly be seen by psephologists as an endorsement of liberal politics. The terms "Democrat" and "Republican" do not come into it.

The best way of seeing this -- other than following the obvious logic of conscience -- is to observe the zeal with which liberals operate. Has the Democratic Party budged an inch on Roe v. Wade, despite losing control of all three branches of the government at one time or another since 1973?

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Taxes, Harry Reid, Bill Clinton, Business, Religion, Catholicism, Protestantism, Abortion, Environment, Global Warming, Constitution, Law, Supreme Court, Military, United Nations, European Union, NATO, Africa, Socialism, Conservatism, Immigration