(Page 4 of 4)
Tom Udall is a liberal earth warming eco-nut who is selling snake oil to the masses. Steve Pearce is a strong conservative who understands the need for smaller government and for producing energy from our internal resources. Udall is in favor of illegal immigrant amnesty, Pearce opposes amnesty. In fact, they are exact opposites on all issues.
This is a bellwether senatorial race. Will the Republican
National Committee support Pearce? If not, then we will know that
the Republican Party is the RINO Party.
-- Nelson Ward
Cowles, New Mexico
YOU'LL ONLY MAKE IT WORSE
Re: Jeffrey Lord's LBJ's List
and the Conservative Challenge:
I have only one point to make regarding Mr. Lord's piece on the failure of the Great Society. There will never be an effective "conservative" response to liberal spending in Washington. Why? Because the whole point of the Federal Government, at this time, is to spend money. And every politician there has as his or her number one goal the maintenance of their position. They do this by spending money, OUR money. And no one; conservative, liberal or independent; is going to do anything meaningful to change that.
In point, the Reagan Era was marked by a general growth of government. Yes, there were the famous Reagan tax cuts, but they served to generate more revenue for an already bloated federal bureaucracy. The Republican revolt of 1994 and its "Contract with America" promised smaller, cheaper government. A decade later, there was little or no observable difference in the spending habits of Republicans and Democrats and the Federal bureaucracy had doubled in size. In fact, civilian government [from federal to local] is the largest industry in the US and produces nothing; when, in fact, it should be just slightly larger than fish farming.
No, there will be no effective conservative response to
government spending; simply because, once conservative politicians
step through the looking glass into Washington, D.C., they behave
just like every other tax and spend politician there. No matter who
is in power in Washington, there will be grass growing in the
streets in ten years. Though I do agree that Republicans can
accomplish this more cheaply.
-- Michael Tobias
Oddly, there are some programs that could be added to LBJ's list and fit right in despite those who suggested them. Neither Mr. Lord's article nor any of the reader's responses published named them.
In no particular order, we have No Child Left Behind, Medicare Drug Benefits, the War on Drugs, Ethanol Subsidies, Immigration Reform '86, and the latest Farm Bill of '08.
What do all of these have in common? They greatly expanded the power of the Federal Government, reduced the American citizen's personal liberties and/or purchasing power, and have all demonstrated the consistent capability for Government to fail. The fact that all were passed through with support of supposedly conservative Republicans doesn't change the fact that all were liberal policies.
With Mr. Kibbe's article on Senator Grassley, these additions clearly demonstrate why Republican's have lost the Congress, and why the conservative movement needs some new champions.
Republicans are not necessarily conservative, no matter what they may say. If the Republicans want to regain a position of power and respect, they will need to find the correct definition of Conservative. Then they need to live that definition. Vote it, speak it, defend it, and breathe it.
And finally, I suggest anyone who thinks that LBJ's programs, or
the additions I have mentioned here, are such Great Things need
review the Wizard's Second Rule: The worst of consequences come
from the actions of the best intentions.
-- Charles Campbell
Austin, Texas
OBAMA ONLINE
Re: G. Tracy Mehan, III's Obama's
Fast Draw:
Obama's fast draw -- his name is George Soros & his bundling
crew! Follow the money, all directions point to Soros.
-- Kathy
Arizona