(Page 3 of 14)
For the most part, William Tucker is dead on in his analysis of the moribund Giuliani campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, but for crying out loud, Tucker loses me totally by saying Rudy (Giuliani) should announce, “I will sign the Kyoto Protocol?” Tucker admits the Global Warming movement is a fraud and, “Nobody who signed the Kyoto Protocol is doing anything about it.” So why does Tucker feel the U.S. should? Is symbolism over substance, earning the friendship of other nations, worshiping on the altar of junk science, or any other altruistic impulse sufficiently compelling to ensure for the U.S. second class status in this hostile world? By destroying its capitalist infrastructure and military pre-eminence in favor of a Socialist-Globalist agenda, does Tucker feel the U.S. will regain the friendship of some nations?
The U.S. “going it alone” seems to trouble Tucker. Why?? Leadership — whether world or national — often means going it alone. National survival is not predicated upon winning a popularity contest. If it were (as the current crop of Dem-Liberals seem to wish), we’d be dead. It’s a mean world out there!p>President Bush, for all his faults, understands that it’s lonely at the top, where world leadership is concerned. The U.S. should NOT kowtow to envious little nations with often atavistic inclinations towards us. For example, Iran may at the top of the list of petty, jealous nations trying to bring the U.S. colossus down, but by no means is it alone. We did not break with the hub of the Axis of Evil. They broke with us 29 years ago with an act of war — the taking of hostages. By coming clean on its nuke program, Iran should take the first step in regaining OUR trust, not the other way around! Likewise, our so-called ‘friends’ and ‘allies’ should be expected to do a lot of fence mending with the U.S. Frankly, I’m sick and tired of the U.S. begging the world to admit us into its ‘club.’ br> — Robert D. br> Morristown, New Jersey /p>
Nice article about why a dynamic likeable man has become a bore on the campaign trail.
The war on Islamic terrorists is important, but there’s no reason a serious candidate couldn’t issue a series of papers outlining his stance on other important issues. Just a few suggestions:
1. Border security — Commit to building the fence, and promise to penalize employers for hiring illegals. If a transient workforce is necessary, pledge to bring in temporary workers. For inspiration, look at the Canadian method of doing this.
2. Social Security — Quit dillydallying. Come right out and state that it either has to be privatized at some level, or means test it.
3. Federal Judges — Pledge to appoint judges who are interested in preserving the Bill of Rights. Anyone else obviously either has an intelligence problem, or a personality problem, i.e., they have too large an ego to be a judge.
4. Commit to pushing again for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Paygo is not the answer to problems.
5. Point out that earmarks are wrong, and state that if elected President, an executive order to ignore any earmarks not strictly legal will be forthcoming. At least, then Congress will have to insert them into the legislation, not the conference report. In the cold light of day, the American public can see which members of Congress are engaging in payola.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?