The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Where's the Love?

8.8.08 @ 12:01AM

(Page 2 of 6)

After all it used to be illegal under church law to practice usury.
-- Kevin Walsh
Greater Dandenong
Australia

This is an excellent article. One of the things I truly enjoyed about it was the clear recitation of several points I have made in personal discussions of this administration. It should be no secret that though I have my own problems with the Bush administration, though I very rarely blame Bush or his administration for them being there. Bush holds the distinction of having been the only president to ever have his administration questioned and called illegitimate from his first day in office. With 9/11 and Iraq, we often forget all about the difficulties of the 2000 election, and Al Gore's simple refusal to admit his defeat in the electoral college. Combined with his attempts to bring more ideological balance to a highly liberal professional bureaucracy (honest or not) and we see an administration with a lot of problems. Bush's apparent poor public speaking skills haven't helped much either. I also think that while he's remained mostly consistent from an ideological perspective, he's also had a few too many politicking moments that have caused problems.

In short, Bush is far from a perfect or Great president, but he's been a good one. And we need to try and remember that and remind others of that as much as possible. And as for the squelching of American rights... can anyone give me an example? Other than the general surveillance, that is. I want something specific. Name a name, give me a person who had their rights violated by any action of the Bush administration. Really, 'cause I can name three big actions taken directly by the Clinton Justice department without even thinking hard that ran rough over the American Constitution, policy, values, and law.
-- Charles Campbell
Austin, Texas

The only people who have tried to make a direct link between al-Qaeda and Iraq are Democrats like Bill Clinton and leaker of classified documents Democrat Senator Jay Rockefeller. Only fools with their heads buried up their derrieres would question whether the war on terror is a "proper war." Just read what the terrorists have said and are saying if you seriously doubt this is a war -- a war on a larger and more dangerous scale than Democrats, their media stooges and paleoconservatives want to believe. To treat the threat of Islamic terrorism lightly, as did the Clinton administration and Democrats, is to invite disaster as illustrated by 9/11.

It would behoove people to actually read the Geneva Conventions to appreciate how systematic the Bush administration is in adhering to the rule of law. As one now in Iraq it is amazing to see how far things have progressed since March of 2003 when we initially entered the country. The "Bush war" is being won with minimal casualties (averaging less than 800 deaths per year in 5/12 years better than the murder rate in Democrat Philadelphia, Baltimore City, DC and Richmond combined). Even more despite "war fatigue" (boredom) the American public has had to sacrifice absolutely nothing for the war effort not even higher taxes.

Finally, Democrats and their mindless automatons feel empowered to lie about President Bush, because too many conservatives have been duped into swallowing their propaganda and spouting liberal clichés about him. By hurting the most conservative President in modern US history, liberals have been able to derail our movement and regain the power they crave. Unlike Bill Clinton, George W. Bush is more concerned with actually governing and protecting America than chasing a legacy. He knows the liberal media, academic establishment and Europeans hated Reagan so he's in good company. Whether history vindicates President Bush is irrelevant. What is important is that he continues to fulfill his Constitutional responsibility and keep America safe. If the American people think that's unimportant they can elect Barack Obama and follow the advice of Mrs. John Kerry and "learn to live with terrorism like Europeans do."
-- Michael Tomlinson
Habbaniyah, Iraq

CELEBUTANTE VERSUS WRITER/ACTOR/ECONOMIST
Re: Ben Stein's Porn Star for Obama:

I never thought in a million years I'd defend Paris Hilton, but Ben Stein's "Porn Star for Obama" piece was not worthy of print on your web site. It's ugly and cruel, and I wonder why Ben felt he needed to watch the Paris' sex tape video (I've not seen it nor do I have any interest in seeing it).

Perhaps he should be pointing the finger at John McCain's campaign for inserting Paris into the political conversation to begin with. Now that McCain has been hoist on his own petard, Mr. Stein reacts with venom bordering on unhinged.

Please take down this ugly piece of writing.
-- Sonja Mendoza
Socorro, New Mexico

I had a different take than Ben Stein. First of all, I loved McCain's original ad. Secondly, I love Paris' "rebuttal" because it kills two birds with one stone. Paris' energy plan is what McCain has been proposing. Obama is now dumber than Paris Hilton. Never mind that lots and lots of people will now watch McCain's ad again. Never mind that the response of the Obama campaign was "Whatever." The second bird is that it makes Paris appear like she has a brain as well as being 35 years old if she thinks she's running for President. And there's nothing more devastating to her image than if she were smart and old. This whole thing is a gold mine for McCain. He gets young people to realize that Obama is dumber than Paris Hilton and he gets old people to realize that they don't really like young people.
-- Andrew Macfadyen, M.D.
Omaha, Nebraska

Way to go Ben Stein, somebody needed to tell the little tramp she's not hot, and that's right...not even close to pretty. In telling her, he told so many others as well, and that's why they're so exercised.
-- Bill Cook
Seward, Alaska

I think Mr. Stein's assessment of Paris Hilton's rise to fame and the dubious merit of her celebrity is entirely accurate. There is no reason on Earth why we should even know who she is -- until now. Mr. Stein has let his political ideology blind him as to what has really happened here. John McCain started it. He used Paris Hilton, as a symbol of vacuous celebrity in a generally unwarranted attack ad on his political opponent. Ms. Hilton, of course has had nothing to do with the campaigns of either candidate, so her inclusion in that ad was entirely gratuitous and, I presume, unauthorized. Mr. McCain used Ms. Hilton to make fun his opponent, and he got burned as people sometimes do when they use other people. Simply put, the vacuous celebrity, with no apparent reason to be famous, upstaged him. That is really sad. Ms. Hilton was very funny. Mr. McCain's ad was not. It kind of reminds me of Mr. Stein's character and Ferris Bueller -- no contest.
-- David Turner

Reading Mr. Stein's article and several letters in response I think far too much is being made of Ms. Hilton's reply.

McCain's placement of Ms. Hilton's image in the original ad used her iconic Pop Celebrity a very effective rapier against Obama. It worked better than anyone could have dreamed and they are still off balance because of it.

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Taxes, Foreign Policy, Education, Trade, Health Care, John McCain, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Islam, Abortion, Environment, Books, Hollywood, Constitution, Law, Military, Iraq, Iran, NATO, North Korea, Communism, Energy, Alaska, Oil, Unions