The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Restored Confidence

7.30.08 @ 12:01AM

ALL EARS
Re: R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.'s Captain McCain:

Out of this list of yours:

"... Democrats' promised panaceas: higher taxes, more government regulators, more bureaucrats, and a lunge at the country's health providers with the intent of transforming them into the efficiency experts at the U.S. Postal Service. Moreover, there are federal judicial appointments to make, a war on terror to fight, and extravagant government spending to be scotched."

...the only item on it we can count on McCain to differ from Democrats is the war on terror.
-- Paul Doolittle

Excellent article -- I have only one quarrel with Mr. Tyrrell's merciless description of Obama's thin resume. I don't think "wet behind the ears" aptly describes young Barry. He has no behind the ears. He has an "in front of the ears" and an "in back of the ears," but no "behind the ears." I am an expert on ears that lie nestled snugly against the head, having washed behind two generations of little boys' ears. As Obama's ears seem grafted on like handles on a teapot -- that is to say, straight out, there could be no wet behind, as any damp area would dry immediately.

As an ear watcher and ear washer, may I say R. Emmett Tyrrell has attractive ears? I just did.
-- Diane Smith

There is at least one issue that the pundits, talkers, and writers on "our" side of the left to right political spectrum have so far refused to address. I have asked this question numerous times, in numerous places, but no one will give a straight answer. They dance and spin until it make my ignorant head spin.

That question is, why do conservatives and those with libertarian leanings steadfastly refuse to call a spade a spade when it comes to Obama and his ilk. Obama is NOT a leftist. Obama is a Socialist, one that borders on being a Marxist. Further, he is a one world Socialist, if there is any other kind. He is a George Soros, one world, Socialist, not a leftist. He should be referred to as the Socialist candidate for President. He should this way each and every time he is mentioned in writing or oral communication.
Jimmy Carter was, during his Presidency, a leftist, albeit an incompetent one. He was not, at the time, a Socialist. Jimmy Carter was in the top 5 worst American Presidents of all time, but he was an American at bottom.

I am totally unable to confidently say that Obama and his wife, Michele, are dedicated Americans in the very marrow of their bones. They do not show me that they put the interests of America first in their prescriptions for governing issues. Where is there evidence that Obama would put the interests of the United States above the interests of the United Nations, the European Union, or any other world governing body. Where is the evidence that he would not honor the one world prescriptions of George Soros, Rebecca Peters, the United Nations, etc.

Finally, I would like to know why Emmett Tyrrell Jr., Quin Hillyer, or any of the other writers at The American Spectator refuse to consistently use the term Socialist for Obama, instead of the weak and fundamentally questionable term "Leftist?" Are you afraid that you will offend the Democrats and their fellow travelers in the media and academia? Are you afraid that you will miss out on invitations to Washington D. C. area cocktail parties and dinners? Are you afraid that some of your so called "friends" will cut you off? The mainstream American electorate will not elect a Socialist. They will elect a Leftist that will take care of them, like a parent would. Sure the MSM will have a conniption fit, but so what? They already despise you. They already think that you are too stupid, or too venal, to be allowed outside to play with the other kids.

I could say the same things about Conservative talkers, like Hannity, or Ingraham, or Rush, etc. But the bottom line is that somebody, or some publication has to have the cajones to be the leaders, to start the movement to plain language and truth telling. Do the writers at the American Spectator have the necessary courage, or are you simple sheep that insist of letting the political define the terms to be used in the rough and tumble of politics, to define the rules to be followed in the media game? I would like a straight answer as to why you folks continue to be AWOL in this fight to save the very essence of our once great country? Conservatives and our warriors (mostly the same folks) deserve better from you.
-- Ken Shreve

R. Emmett Tyrrell's exposition on possible presidency by our Abu Hussein -- namely bad economy, bad social legislation, far-left courts, Carter II foreign policy -- falls short of the full impact of such a presidency on this country. Mr. Tyrrell's brief description of Obama's work experience as "community organizer" is not fully described; in fact it is a career of a revolutionary welfare pimp in charge of illegal and violent manifestations intimidating the elected officials of Chicago. Then Obama became a lawyer for succeeding welfare pimps, and finally law instructor for future lawyers for welfare pimps. His close friendship with admitted and unrepentant domestic terrorists such as Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, with Marxist revolutionary groups such as ACORN, and with racist revolutionaries such as various "reverends" should be illustrated with vivid examples of their rhetoric. Obama's probable appeasement of Muslim jihadists should be illustrated through Obama's own words. Now that would present a more realistic picture of the abyss facing this country in November.
-- Marc Jeric
Las Vegas, Nevada

Bob Tyrrell's lecture on the overarching virtues of candidate McCain was the single best written argument I've read with respect to voting for this guy. I am biased, I suppose. Tyrell is one of those Conservative "warriors" I keep trying to locate. And at least a minor treasure. He actually brings passion and logic to his convictions. I've met the senator... I disliked him almost immediately, sometimes after listening further to the fellow I wonder why I didn't dislike him sooner. He strikes me as self-important, self-regarding, and self-inflating. I believe him to be bitter and wrong far too often on Conservative issues, e.g. immigration, First Amendment. Well, you know the drill. On the other hand, Tyrell's apologia DOES make a case for double-clutching on an absolute refusal to vote for McCain. McCain is a serious man. Senator Obama is as well, but in the style of a preening, supercilious feline. He would, in concert with a Reid Senate and Pelosi House proceed to break this country. If nothing else, Bob Tyrrell has given me cause to pause. This election will count for something.
-- J.C. Eaton
Chetek, Wisconsin

You have managed to spin quite a few of McCain's shortcomings (and believe me, they are shortcomings!), but you fail to address the Gang of 14; the holds he placed on conservative judicial nominees; the in-your-face votes against President Bush; his amnesty for illegals; his stupid adherence to Global Warming Baloney; his votes against tax cuts, his obstinate refusal to consider drilling in the ANWR and I could go on and on.

When he voted against the tax cuts he said it was because they were "tax cuts for the rich." At that time there was no mention of off-setting cuts in spending. For seven years he did everything in his power to embarrass the President. How many times did we see him on TV reviling Republicans and -- especially conservatives?

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Taxes, Foreign Policy, Education, Trade, John McCain, Bill Clinton, Abortion, Global Warming, Constitution, Law, Military, United Nations, European Union, NATO, Socialism, Communism, Immigration