The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Let the Little Girl Dance

4.16.08 @ 12:01AM

(Page 3 of 3)

Right on the button, Mr. Lord. May I add that Barack Obama has the special skill of separating words from truth, which we forget at our peril.

Obama made quite an issue about words not being "just words," making me wonder why he is so shifty with them himself.

Who does he think he's fooling with his apology that "I'm sorry if my words hurt," or "I could have chosen better words," etc.?

It's not the WORDS that hurt, O Twinkle-Tongued Orator -- it's the meaning behind the words (though we may all rest assured that he darn well knows that).

If I were to label him a hypocritical lying bigot, and he were offended, so then I "apologize for the words I used" and explain that what I really meant was that he was a two-faced prevaricating racist, and he were offended by THAT, so then I say I'm "sorry that I had not chosen better words" and say that he says one thing and does another while telling falsehoods about someone of a different race and social standing, then I guess everything would be alright.

Words changed, insult gone.

Yeah right, in wonder-filled Obama World. In my world, he insulted me and my fellow Pennsylvanians with four insults. The same one worded three different ways, plus the fourth by assuming I'm too stupid to notice.

D'oh.
-- A. C. Santore

A question of character? That's obvious.

How about questions of sanity, identity and ignorance?

Regarding sanity, the more I read what Barack Obama has said over these past months and his lame attempts to sanitize what he's said or his reaction to what he's said -- as in: "They're upset at that? -- the more I think he's deluded.

Regarding identity, I think it would be polite to call him a cipher, albeit a well-educated one who's a skillful rhetorician and who's gravitated to his blackness because he's got one very dangerous long-term burr in his urban cowboy's saddle about whites, anyone other than who he considers the elites, people with faith and democratic government itself.

Regarding ignorance, I think he's clueless about what most Americans' lives and dreams are, but also woefully underestimates their ability to detect a charlatan and act on that knowledge.
-- C. Kenna Amos
Princeton, West Virginia

Jeffrey Lord is only half-right. Obama's character may be his fatal flaw, but it is only fatal if enough of it is revealed. That would require responsible journalists asking responsible questions. The latest flap was the result of a private citizen sneaking a recording device into the meeting in San Francisco.

If that hadn't happened, the public wouldn't have known a thing.
-- Arnold Ahlert
Boca Raton, Florida

If readers would like to find out how Obama learned his oratory techniques, I am going to link you to an Astute Blogger article, "Jeremiah was once a Muslim." However, the real link is in the first paragraph, which will send you to an interview of Barack Obama by the New Republic (that link is "old article by Ryan Lizza in the New Republic"). This New Republic article appeared prior to Obama's announcing for the presidency. It is quite revealing.
-- Fred Edwards

I have to laugh at all of the venom being spewed about Senator Obama's elitism. The conservative elite has been absolutely brilliant in the way they are playing this theme to distract us common folk from thinking about the current recession and rising inflation.
-- Mike Roush
North Carolina

SWEET XVI
Re: Mark Shea's Benedict's Big Week:

Mr. Shea makes a remarkable statement regarding our national press and its collective attitude toward Pope Benedict, and how we might be impressed by him, namely that he "does not seem to be as...anti-intellectual as members of our journalistic class have been assuring one another he is." This is an incredible statement regarding one of the leading intellects of our time, who also happens to be a spiritual leader of great courage and conviction.

For a national press that is woefully ignorant of anything of significance, whose superciliousness knows no bounds, to be dismissive of the intellect of this Pope, is like Alfred E. Newman being dismissive of the intellect of Einstein. Benedict puts virtually all leading secular thinkers to shame. His recent conversations with Jurgen Habermas, for example, followed an acknowledgment by that philosopher (one of our time's leading philosophers) of communicative reason and discourse in the public sphere, of our modern, as well as post-modern, debt to Faith:

"Christianity has functioned for the normative self-understanding of modernity as more than a mere precursor or a catalyst. Egalitarian universalism, from which sprang the ideas of freedom and social solidarity, of an autonomous conduct of life and emancipation, of the individual morality of conscience, human rights, and democracy, is the direct heir to the Judaic ethic of justice and the Christian ethic of love. This legacy, substantially unchanged, has been the object of continual critical appropriation and reinterpretation. To this day, there is no alternative to it. And in the light of the current challenges of a post-national constellation, we continue to draw on the substance of this heritage. Everything else is just idle post-modern talk."

Benedict XVI is the world's current leading proponent of the necessary synthesis of Reason and Faith. Would that we had a press corps that could come close to fathoming this simple fact. His perspective, indeed, holds the key to the (secular, not just spiritual) salvation of the post-modern world.
-- Kent Lyon
College Station, Texas

FILING LATE
Re: Paul Dorell's letter (under "Going It Alone") in Reader Mail's American Noises:

Wow! Paul Dorell's letter really knocked me for a loop. America ain't that great? Sounds like Michelle Obama's next stump speech, but I think his letter provides a window to the progressive mindset. Paul, if your analysis about taxation is correct, then perhaps your underlying assumption is wrong -- that wealthy conservatives don't like taxes because they believe that "greed is good". Maybe -- just maybe -- there are philosophical reasons why conservatives chafe at feeding an ever growing, ever more intrusive state. In fact, I'd be happy to fork over more money, under 2 conditions: 1) none of it goes to the government, but instead to the charity of my choice; and 2) the federal budget is reduced by an equal amount.

As to your contention that America's wealth is only an accident of history and/or geography, that is just classic collectivist thinking -- that wealth is more or less a natural resource, and therefore the problem of government is how to distribute it all equally. Wealth is not a resource -- it is a creation of the human intellect and the work of human hands, and the greatest duty of any government is to set those minds and hands free.
-- Pete Chase
San Diego, California

KINDRED SPIRITS
Re: Beverly Gunn's letter (under "Hunting Season") in Reader Mail's American Noises:

To Beverly Gunn, (East Texas Rancher), who just spoke to my heart about how she and her husband raised her children after D.C. She said it all, concerning these so-called Democratic presidential candidates and their intentions as I could never. They just don't get it.

Anyway I just want to tell her that she and her family are what real Americans are all about. I also agree that I do not want Hillary or Bill on my TV every night and certainly not Obama, who appears to have no love for our Country. I too am not enthused about McCain but at least he appears to CARE about this our America.

Beverly has written before, as I recognize her fervor. I also pray for her son every night.

Thank you,
-- Marie Simmons
Schoharie, New York

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Taxes, Barack Obama, Business, Federal Budget, Law, NATO, Socialism, Oil