The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Isn't She Lovely?

8.27.08 @ 12:01AM

(Page 4 of 5)

I remember the Presidential race of '87/'88, and I clearly remember Biden stealing another man's biography.

Until I saw this special report by Jeffrey Lord, I knew nothing of Biden stealing RFK's words. I'm from Arizona and never spent much time reading the New York Times.

Once again The American Spectator offers information that is timely and useful. Thank you!
-- Toni Monti
Phoenix, Arizona

Interesting article describing a selfless effort for truth, justice (Bork) and the American Way.

The aspect claimed by the author reflects the popular mythology of the Republican Party which has supplied it the necessary "value votes" to succeed.

In a world where the electorate does tell a book by its cover, the GOP has unquestionably claimed the more effective cover -- in more ways than one -- which does a disservice to those who have had to eventually read the book.

My question centers on the way Mr. Lord claims the legacy of Robert Kennedy has ascended to today's GOP...with requisite improvements, of course. However, the truth lies elsewhere. Bobby Kennedy was, above all, a believer in universal rights, Mr. Lord has corrupted that into a belief in the sanctity of individual rights while attempting to retain the universalist legacy...the "cover" of the aforementioned book. In his defense, he is not alone, as that appears a unifying principle of the former 1960s liberals who have evolved into hard line conservatives because they lost the dreams of the Kennedy era.

It is well known candidates do not write speeches, although they should have command of them and know where rhetoric originates. In fairness, not everyone had the author's set of RFK platters memorized. Unless it is certain Biden wrote the speeches with that knowledge, it should have been a non-issue.

All this outrage generated by the propagation of unoriginal ideas drips irony coming from the party that routinely sends "talking points" to TV commentators, newspaper columnists (fifth columnists in essence) and retired military officers rendering "expert opinions" on war and peace (actually, just war) to an unsuspecting democratic citizenry.

Gosh, some of the GOP's best friends are plagiarists.
-- Wayne Anderson
Dayton, Ohio

KENT WE GET ALONG?
Re: Kate Shaw's and Edmund Dantes's letters (under "Innocence Redefined") in Reader Mail's Biden His Time:

Kate, Edmund... I'm hurt. Really, really hurt. To resort to ad hominem attacks worthy of a lib... wait, there I go with that overblown rhetoric again. Let me instead start with a mea culpa. I should not have used the word 'children' where I should have used the word 'kids.' This was totally a 'my bad' moment. My only defense is that it was very early, and I was barely into my first cup of coffee. And being able to look back at my own college years, with them being so recent, and knowing exactly what it is like, I feel very confident in my ability to label them 'kids.' And Kate, really? I figured my subtle joke on PC euphemism with 'mature voters' would be the kind of humor a conservative would appreciate. Again, coffee...

And also, Edmund, please accept my apologies. All though your choose of wording did lead me to conclude that you were essentially dismissing the sacrifice those kids made that day, it is clear from your response that you were not attempting to do so. Maybe I was wrong to conclude as such; please see aforementioned statement on coffee.

Now...let's play a game of 'pretend.' Let's 'pretend' that tomorrow we all read a story of the Russian army being called out to quell a days-long protest against Russia's actions in Georgia at Moscow University. These protestors throw some stones and get fired upon, and four end up dead... what will be our reactions? Oh, heck, why pretend? Let's cast our minds back to 1989, Tiananmen Square, Beijing. How about Boston, 1770? The act of having regular line army soldiers quelling protesters is a horrible act, no matter the place, time, or the reasons. I'm sorry, is that more awkward overstated rhetoric? Too much 'absolute' truth?

I see your reasoning, Edmund. I would like you to see mine. All too often, those who would call themselves 'conservative' are all too willing to justify the illegal (the Drug War), the inappropriate (Sen. Craig) or the wrong (Kent State, though my conclusions were incorrect) when these actions are taken in support of conservative ideals, or by conservatives. This is a problem, and it is costing the conservative movement as a whole. What should be a clear governing majority in this country instead has to fight and scramble and defend itself because you are too quick to close ranks when clearly incorrect action has occurred. And while I don't really consider myself a conservative, I am very sympathetic to the movement, and I agree with you most of the time. And those kids that day did not 'die.' They didn't lie down and give up. They were slaughtered by the United States military. And while I will not cast aspersions on the individuals who were in uniform that day, I will call out those who put them in that place. We have a military to protect our borders and fight our wars, not to quell unwanted protests, no matter how disruptive they were. And the whole of the conservative movement should do the same. Not so you can agree with me, but so you can be seen for the right thinking people that you are and not have to defend untenable positions. Oh, crud... more overstated rhetoric...

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Foreign Policy, John McCain, Economics, Business, Islam, Constitution, Law, Military, Iraq, Iran, Russia, Energy