The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Boys Will Be Boys

9.16.08 @ 12:01AM

(Page 4 of 4)

Of course Madame Hillary is absent from the campaign. She continues to be a loyal supporter -- of her own presidential ambitions; an Obama presidency only delays her. Further, HRC simply does not like the young usurper. Lastly, and most importantly, Hillary is a strategic thinker; she finds no value in tipping her hand as to how she will run in 2012: Palin vs. Clinton!
-- Ira M. Kessel
Rochester, New York

AL QAEDA, BAGHDAD BRANCH
Re: Laurie Mylroie's Sarah and Saddam:

Laurie Mylroie continues her persistent and correct analysis of Saddam's role in 9/11. It is buttressed (as Dr. Mylroie has noted in previous writings) by Saddam's harboring of Yasin, who helped make the bomb for the '93 Trade Center bombing, and by the assistance Shakir, an Iraqi intelligence agent, gave to two of the 9/11 hijackers at a critical meeting in January 2000 in Malaysia. Note as well that Yosef Bodansky's biography of Bin Laden reveals an important Al Qaeda/Iraq intelligence meeting in Baghdad in February to March 1998 and the delivery by Saddam's associate, Hijazi, of blank diplomatic passports to Bin Laden in Afghanistan. Toss in Mohammed Atta's meetings with Iraqi intelligence agent Al Ani in Prague and you have a recipe that makes Sarah Palin's assertions rather reasonable.
-- Lawrence Kohn
Madison, Wisconsin

PURISTS NEED NOT APPLY
Re: Philip Klein's Don't Obamaize Palin:

Philip Klein's piece, "Don't Obamaize Palin" is excellent and thought-provoking. No doubt many movement Conservatives will want to vet Ms. Palin to determine her bona fides as an ideological Conservative, especially with regard to economic issues. But to me, as an independent, the possibility that she may in some areas be more of a moderate than an ideologically a "pure" Conservative is a plus.

I find her statement that she entered politics to "serve the common good," appealing when coupled with the reality of her accomplishments cleaning up corruption in Alaska's Republican Party, selling the Governor's plane, dismissing the cook -- and returning the money to the people.

I would hazard the observation that, over the past century, the majority of our greatest presidents and vice presidents (the great Reagan being the exception) have not been ideologically "pure" in the sense of being adherents to political philosophy, but have tended to be realists who employed a political philosophy but were flexible and overall more moderate than extreme in cleaving to it. I am thinking of Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, and Dwight Eisenhower. All were largely effective; none was an ideological purist.
-- Heather Robinson
New York City, New York

BARRACUDA ATTACK
Re: James P. Lucier's A Negotiator Without Preconditions:

Thank you for backing my faith with fact on Sarah Palin.

Her quality of leadership and much ignored experience is so blinding, it's a shame some can't even see it in front of their eyes.

Time will tell, lets cross our fingers.

Because we know (no gender insult intended) behind every good man, is a great woman.

Have a wonderful day and thanks for the great article.

McCain/Palin all the way!
-- Kim Tramutola
Selinsgrove, Pennsylvania

PAT ON THE BACK
Re: Reader Mail's No Way to Live:

After all this time I should no longer be amazed at the quality of your readership, nor the respondents' collective smarts; it's wonderful to know that there really are some thinking people left. Diane Smith continues to make me smile, even giggle (even though our house is probably toast, following Ike's path thru our island neighborhood on the Gulf -- gotta maintain one's balance or sense of humor, 'ay?). Love that Jerome Dean quote; pre-Yogi stuff. Thanks.

Those three letters on the sorry state of education? Amen. Nothing else to add. Great observations.

As an Independent with Libertarian leanings, amen (again!) to Eric Dondero's opinions as well. The pro-life zealots' ponderous pontificating certainly does get a little old -- so sanctimonious, as if there weren't maybe a few other compelling questions requiring answers. Tunnel-vision to the extreme it seems.

And, Sally Quinn? Consider her husband's statements when you weigh her "thoughts." Said Ben Bradlee, editor of the Washington Post at the Smithsonian Institution, as reported by David Brooks in the Wall Street Journal (10/5/89): "To hell with news! I'm no longer interested in news. I'm interested in causes. We don't print the truth. We don't pretend to print the truth. We print what people tell us. It's up to the public to decide what's true."

Doesn't that pretty much express what the self-appointed "elite" think of us poor unwashed masses?
-- frost

CAN'T WIN FOR LOSING
Re: Stephen Zierak's letter (under "Rationalizing") in Reader Mail's No Way to Live:

Every election cycle brings out the political calculators from the conservative and libertarian watering holes. The reasoning may change but the conclusion is always the same: we will win by losing.

Mr. Zierak believes McCain is such a turkey that his presidency is doomed to be unsuccessful -- made all the worse by dirtying the Republican "brand name" and ruining the chances for any true conservative/libertarian powerhouse in future races.

As for Obama, apparently his turkey-ness will be revealed once in office by the mighty hand of the Republican opposition. Such an epiphany for the American public could result in less bad policy and dooming the chances for a second term for Obama. (What? No money on that bet?) Evidently Mr. Zierak also has paid a visit to the witch of Endor to call forth the ghost of Herbert Hoover to illustrate a profound lesson: our country will survive a bad presidency but the Republican Party won't.

As to this last reckoning, unlike the Democrats, it has been a principle among conservatives and even most Republicans that country comes before party. It is unethical to maneuver to produce (even if only by inaction) misfortunes for one's countrymen in order to reap political advantage. We already have one party that does that

But let's consider two more recent historical examples. When Clinton assumed the presidency, the Republican opposition grew to control of both houses of Congress. While it is true that Clinton had to eat some bitter herbs in Republican legislation he also didn't take it laying down famously reminding all with ears he was still the President of the United States. In the end Clinton outwitted the Republicans to achieve many of his own ends in spite of the fact that he had a scandal around his neck. Moreover, Clinton still managed to inflict damage on the country -- most of which would not be made manifest until later. And to confound all rational expectations, many if not most Americans look back on the eight Clinton years as some sort of golden age.

Even more recently, we have the elections of 2006. Again, our political calculators were so angry with the Republican congress that they decided it was time to lose so that the bad apples would get thrown out and the blockheads in the Republican leadership would learn their lesson. They got their wish: losing anyhow. What we got was a number of the good guys losing simply because they were Republicans while the idiots kept their seats. The very blockheads in the Party we wanted to send a message to instead spun defeat into their vindication over the "ideologues." Meanwhile, instead of sending a message to Congress, a Democrat Congress has been sending a message back to us -- promising that there's much more where that came from once Obama changes the drapes in the White House.

Nope, Mr. Zierak, methinks you be too clever by half.
-- Mike Dooley

Hmmm. Steve Zierak and I don't see the same outcome from a McCain presidency in the long term. I don't see McCain as becoming a "failed" presidency as much as a pivotal point in American politics where the left and right are openly defined for all to see and decide where at last we want to go as a people. I think Steve and I agree basically on where we would like to see America in the near future but differ in how to get there. Can we agree that such a Republican/McCain victory this November, which is already showing promise of large coat tails in the state and congressional races would at least have the salutary effect of on the job training for a President Palin in 2016 and one can dare to hope in 2012?

In any case doing nothing so that evil men can triumph is not an option and never has been unless you somehow believe you can insulate yourself deep enough that the fall out will not affect you and yours. But then I consider the entire nation "mine," so chose not to bury my head and hope for the best. The lesser of two evils may be survivable. The greater in this case is not.
-- Craig Sarver
Seattle, Washington

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Education, Trade, Sarah Palin, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Business, Sports, Hollywood, Constitution, Law, Iraq, Africa, Energy, Alaska, Oil