The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Primetime McCain

8.19.08 @ 12:01AM

(Page 3 of 5)

If a Pennsyltuckian is needed, let us not forget Rick Santorum who, despite his Senate loss, remains an attractive conservative--or, for that matter, John Kasich of Ohio, a Pennsylvania native.
-- Richard Donley
New Lyme, Ohio

My instincts at reading political personnae serve me well. When Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas appeared out of nowhere in 1991, I immediately liked him. His work as Justice confirms my first impression.

When the Clintons journeyed from the Little Rock stage into the national arena in 1992, I immediately distrusted them. Their subsequent selfish duplicity and evil deeds do not surprise me.

Considering the presidential candidates, the choice between McCain and Obama is not difficult. Adding Tom Ridge to McCain's ticket makes the decision more difficult. I do not trust Tom Ridge.
-- David Shoup

Here's a straight answer from a conservative voter: NO to pro-abortion Republican candidates. Now, I normally am a pro-life voter -- I used to vote only based on that issue. However, due to the severity of problems we need to deal with, even I have changed a bit. Now, I vote for those who will make conservative decisions on our Judges, stop the obscene spending of our tax money and close our borders and keep America safe. Now Senator McCain, I am sure you can pick a VP who meets all these requirements knowing that most thinking Americans find the above mentioned issues are worth defending, whether it be by Republicans, Independents or Reagan Democrats. Don't try and justify abortion by selecting a Pro Abortion advocate -- instead justify picking a VP who truly wants to bring sanity and a more conservative approach of common sense back to America.
-- Joellen M. Arrabito

Conservatives are not the only voters in Pennsylvania. Remember Rick Santorum (R. Senator-Pa. pro-life) just lost his election. I doubt Tom Ridge would have lost that election had he been running. He is very popular there. And McCain is thinking of Hillary's women, that they might be more inclined to vote for him with Ridge on the ticket. Ridge could produce the winning edge in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan.
-- Howard Lohmuller
Seabrook, Texas

FEEL THE CHILL
Re: George H. Wittman's Refreezing the Cold War:

Russia's invasion of Georgia immediately produced thoughts of the old Soviet Union and its grand plan to bury the West. Of course pundits examined where Russia's grand strategy might be taking it. But as the episode unfolds, it is looking more like Russia has made a strategic mistake that will produce a backlash in the U.S., the Balkans and Caucasus, Europe, Japan and parts of Asia.

Looking at Russia's action in a different light produces a different answer however. Suppose the invasion of Georgia is 80% about the oil and gas pipelines running through Georgia from the Caspian to the Mediterranean Sea. If Russia can establish an economic sphere of influence by establishing a monopoly on energy supplies to Europe and Asia, it can dictate prices and the policies of other countries by controlling the on off valves as it has already demonstrated.

Having such an energy monopoly might enable Russia to boost energy income by 25% for 5 to 7 years. In seven years energy income could triple and gross domestic product could double. Russia needs the money to:

1) equip the military
2) continue their space program
3) satisfy pension and health benefits

One is reminded of the Hong Kong spirit when Great Britain ran it. People came knowing that with hard work they could double their money in five years. But Russia is a wholesale economy not a retail economy like Hong Cong and relies on selling its natural resources. Hong Cong has no natural resources other than its port, fish, and the industry of its inhabitants. This new Russian spirit might be called "Show Me The Money!"

How else to explain the precarious, even silly, military situation Russia has placed itself in. Russia is virtually guaranteeing a Western military influence in their neighborhood and political and financial constraints being placed upon it over a sliver of land acquired by the country with the largest land area in the world.
-- Howard Lohmuller
Seabrook, Texas

The standard criticism of the Bush administration by its foreign policy critics is that US has not worked with its allies and the result has been that coalition building has become an end in itself. When the Russians invaded Georgia they proved beyond a shadow of a doubt just how weak and shallow these coalitions are. If America does not stand by its allies when they are invaded, and Georgia is an ally who has been invaded, then any coalition involving America isn't worth the paper it's written on.

The foreign policy establishment refuses to accept that simple point -- instead there is endless whining about how America is overstretched and can't help, the Georgians are sort of sons-of-bitches anyway and any actions will only upset the Russians more. That may be true, but it's also beside the point. It's as good as saying that allies are expendable and America only shows up for the easy jobs. If that is the intention then trying to build alliances is a complete waste of time. Never has there been such muddle, weakness and confusion shown on such a scale and on such an important issue.

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Foreign Policy, John McCain, Vladimir Putin, Sports, Abortion, Environment, Supreme Court, Military, Iran, Russia, NATO, Africa, Energy, Oil