HANDS OFF MITT
Re: Deroy Murdock's Mitt's
Mythical "Mass. Miracle":
What gives, Mr. Murdock, with your anti-Romney obsession?
Whether you are writing about him in NRO, TAS, or
Human Events, you skewer Mitt as though he were totally
devoid of any redeeming qualities or virtues. What is your agenda?
McCain and Rudy have far more and far larger anti-conservative
warts than does Mitt, yet you leave them untouched. Jason Riley's
recent anti-Mitt screed in the Wall Street Journal was
pathetic in that it was not only grievously ignorant of Mormon
fundamentals, but clearly showed Mr. Riley's racial and religious
biases. But none of these faults are apparent in your writing. Your
anti-Mitt articles fail because they are one-dimensional and
tediously, totally negative. Or maybe Pastor Bill Keller is right
after all. Maybe Mitt Romney is the Devil.
-- Darrel Hansen
Alamo, Nevada.
Deroy, your article about Governor Romney was so one sided that it
held no value. Everyone knows that when Romney took office MA was
facing a three Billion dollar short fall, and that Romney had to
turn that around or his state was facing bankruptcy. It doesn't
take a brain surgeon, after Romney turned the short fall into a
three billion dollar surplus, to know that some folks were going to
be unhappy, hard choices had to be made. To compare what he had to
do in MA to honor his oath to that state as their Governor, to
purposely trying to hurt Michigan is silly with obvious intentions
on your part. Romney as Governor was obligated to make hard
decisions to do his job properly for MA only. As President he will
have a 50 state responsibility. Your petty and agenda driven
article only clarified two things for me: 1. The reason I am voting
for Romney for President, and 2. Why I canceled my subscription to
your magazine.
-- Wayne Massey
Never did believe Governor Romney's vaunted healthcare plan was a "free market solution."
Enjoyed every inch of your article
-- Andrew Krill
LIMITED GOVERNMENT THOMPSON
Re: Lawrence Henry's Creative
Destruction in the GOP:
While I agree with a great deal of what Mr. Henry has to say in his column, I believe that he is looking at the candidates through at least a partial MSM prism. He writes; "Other than Paul and Duncan Hunter, no one in the contest decisively represents limited government conservatism, the essence of Ronald Reagan's message." That quite simply is NOT true. Whatever else you may think of him as a candidate, Fred Thompson is a definite "limited government conservative." He is a champion of federalism to his very core. Many of the disagreements that he has with the GOP electorate come about due to his penchant for attempting to push issues down to the state level and away from Washington D.C. Come now, Mr. Henry, is not that the very definition of "limited government conservatism"? If it is not, perhaps you can tell us how you are defining the term.
You also write; "Fred Thompson has great ideas and a surfeit of charisma, but would apparently rather blog from home than speak on the stump or shake hands in diners." It is certainly true that Sen. Thompson has not been away from home campaigning for a year and a half, almost solid, as some of the other candidates have. However, I was paying attention and saw that Fred did a bus tour of Iowa during the two weeks leading up to the caucus. I have also noted that he is campaigning hard, and almost constantly, on the ground in South Carolina. He does not seem to be "blogging from home" to me, but perhaps you have a different definition for that phrase.
Now I admit to being a fan of Sen. Thompson, but has it now come to pass that the nomination is supposed to be wrapped up by the night BEFORE the Iowa caucus, or the day after the New Hampshire primary? Can we now simply do away with the bother and expense of the nomination battles in the other 48 states? How many years ahead of time must a candidate announce his interest in the POTUS nomination to not be deemed to be starting too late? How many of these inane, stupid, boring "debates" must a candidate endure to be considered legitimate? Oh, and how about having real debates instead of these ritualized multi-candidate press conferences designed to give the media a way to try to be relevant? Are nominating conventions now decreed to be simply expensive wastes of money because the nominee is already settled. I, for one, would welcome an old fashioned convention where no one has the votes for the nomination on opening night of the affair. People in the media, and elsewhere, wonder and/or bemoan the fact that no one watches the conventions any more. The TV networks are even curtailing coverage. Why not? They are boring affairs where nothing is decided that wasn't already a fait accompli.
Mr. Henry, I understand that you make your living expressing
your opinions in writing. I applaud you for that. That does not,
however, give you a pass to get away with writing things that are
demonstrably wrong on their face. Do try to keep you columns
plausible, won't you?
-- Ken Shreve
Fred Thompson has been out speaking to audiences and meeting people and shaking hands. I get updates everyday about what he has been doing. He has not been "blogging from home!" You guys might get out into the "countryside" sometime before you try make all these calls about conservatives. They (we) are still here. We just don't live in New Hampshire and Iowa, and we haven't voted yet, though everyone is trying to make it so we can't vote for who we support.
Also, I am distressed that our conservative writers are becoming as unimaginative as the former mainstream media!
The articles I have read lately coming from many in the
conservative media lack insight and deep thought.
-- Michelle Frazier
STOPPED WATCHES
Re: Alan Spearot's Innovation
Nation:
Considering that Michigan is suffering Granholm, Romney would be an improvement. Maybe not much of one, but how much worse can it get? Come back and see us in three months.