Reader Mail
Fumbling Around
Republican leadership: unlikely. Painting an Obama picture. An invidious comparison. Plus more.
(Page 3 of 4)
Maybe it will take some of Obama’s lawyer friends to be killed by these bastards before he really does something final, although I doubt it.
He likes words and thinks in terms of criminals, jail, and how others feel about us Americans…and Jews perhaps.
My generation intends to talk our enemies to death first, fight last…and others are to do the fighting, not them!
Narcissists: Why don’t we just gather them up from all sides of
this conflict and let’m go at each other!
— R. Philips
New Mexico
SINGLE VOTE FOR SINGLE-PAYER
Re: Peter
Ferrara’s Barack
Obama’s Health Care Lies:
Health care delivery in the country is so complicated that a single article gives too little space to actually explain it. But for your sake and for the sake of our readers, I will take on a few points so that you may understand some important points about the McCain plan and what it cannot do.
To begin with, we have a healthcare system that is essentially licensed and regulated at the state level. That means that from hospitals to insurance plans, benefits and health tax credits, they are currently negotiated by state-level legislation and ultimately oversight. That means, then, that any attempt to purchase an insurance plan in one state and use it in another is currently unenforceable. For example, if you purchase a series of benefits in Idaho for a more expensive state like Virginia and try to make it work, there is no agency that is currently legitimated to help you. Neither can the federal government grant any powers, for example, for the plan benefits manager from Idaho to give you the generous benefit in the state of Virginia.
Second, the way things stand; $5000 won’t cover the premium costs for a family plan. Since the average payments hover at around $300 per month — that doesn’t cover usage but straight premiums, the $5000 for families and the $2500 for singletons come up short. I understand Mr. McCain’s desire to sound like a reformer. But saying something and developing a workable policy are two very different things.
The truth is that a single-layer policy with low overhead costs,
where 90% of the treatment dollar goes to actual healthcare, is
the only viable option. But that is another letter.
— Judith V. Lelchook, MHA Tulane ‘99
PhD, health policy analysis, 2010
CONGRESS IS ALWAYS RESPONSIBLE
Re: Ben Stein’s Nice Work, Mr.
Paulson:
How can Ben Stein say Congress is not responsible for the bailout? Congress has failed to do its oversight; that’s a big part of its job. They should have seen this coming. They have allowed Bush power he shouldn’t have. They have listened to lobbyists instead of the people. They have been negligent. They don’t read the bills and they make some bills so large and cumbersome it’s a challenge to read them.
They don’t listen. They don’t hold anyone accountable because they don’t want to be held accountable for their shoddy work. They take money and perks for their votes. They put special interests above the interests of the nation as a whole.
Again — how can Ben Stein say Congress is not accountable, not
responsible?
— Sharleen Nicholson
ASK AND YOU SHALL RECEIVE
Re: Jay Molyneaux’s letter (under “Blue Test”) in Reader Mail’s
Dreams
From my Predecessor:
Mr. Jay Molyneaux’s questions which party runs the states with considerable deficits, bankrupt cities and the worst schools. Although it is not proper to answer a question with another question, in this case I will make an exception.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (12) | Leave a comment
More Articles From Reader Mail
http://spectator.org/archives/2008/12/04/fumbling-around
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- How Not To Buy a Fighter
- Drink Earlier, Drink Less
- Screwtape Protests
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
OCPatriot | 12.4.08 @ 12:36PM
Fear is the key
In the L.A. Times, Neal Gabler has an article that analyzes exactly what "conservative" Republicans have been doing, tracing their strategy back to Senator McCarthy, not to Senator Goldwater, who in 1964 lost in one of the biggest landslides in American electoral history and wrested the party from its Eastern establishment wing.
According to Gabler, the myth tells how Nixon co-opted conservatism, talking like a conservative while governing like a moderate, disenchanting true believers. Ronald Reagan, next, embraced it wholeheartedly, becoming the patron saint of conservatism and making it the dominant ideology in the country, even though he didn't practice it in terms of fiscal responsibility or size of government. George W. Bush picked up Reagan's fallen standard and "conservatized" government even more thoroughly than Reagan had, cheering conservatives until his presidency came crashing down around him. That's how Gabler believes the mythology tells it.
Gabler's thesis is that the real connection is from Sen. Joe McCarthy, to Nixon to Bush and possibly now to Sarah Palin. McCarthy attacked alleged communists and the Democrats whom he accused of shielding them, as well as the centrist American establishment, Eastern intellectuals and the power class, many of whom were Republicans, including moderate ones. McCarthyism became a means to play on the anxieties of Americans, convincing them of danger and conspiracy even when they didn't exist, which he used to build power and support. George H.W. Bush used it to get himself elected, terrifying voters with Willie Horton (and denigrating Dukakis as a commander-in-chief). His son used fear of 9/11 and convincing voters that John Kerry was a coward and a liar and would hand the nation over to terrorists, tried and true McCarthy tactics used very aggressively, and W. then used fear and stealth in pushing through totalitarian unconstitutional measures. The thread continued through McCain and then Palin, probably through Rove (who also coached W.), and I quote from Gabler, "That's why John McCain kept describing Barack Obama as some sort of alien and why Palin, taking a page right out of the McCarthy playbook, kept pushing Obama's relationship with onetime radical William Ayers."
What Gabler believes is that, because of this tradition, the Republican Party will continue to move rightward. Fear and blame; rabble-rousing; the Rush Limbaughs and Sean Hannitys and Bill O'Reillys; and now Palin. This is the direction the Party will take. Probably because it cannot be believed as the party of small government or fiscal responsibility or moral integrity; all credibility lost in the harsh reality of events; at least not until people forget and these actualities become memories and fade. It is a dangerous approach because it incites people to do violent things, especially as times become more stringent.
It is, I believe a shame, because some of the original precepts of fiscal responsibility and keeping government out of peoples' lives and moral integrity are well worth preserving. The Republican Party which stood for those princples was a Grand Old Party. But, I hate to say it, those are all too easily trumped by fear-mongering and, I might add, difficult to achieve. I would nominate the Republican Party today as the Party of Fear, as opposed to the Party of Solutions. And, if that's the direction it's going in, yes, it's a shame.
The consistent thing about guys like Jeb Bush, in line with the old Republican philosophy, is to be against something, not for it; to be in a position to scare people, not to advocate good positive things. Putting people and ideas down is the tack they have taken; witness McCain's whole campaign; witness Sarah's natural proclivities. So Jeb Bush starts off by surfacing and proposing that the Republicans start a "shadow government" to watch, and criticize, and follow what Obama's Administration does closely. What bothers me about this, deeply, I might add, is the fact that it is not being supportive in any way. No one is saying, if we want to survive, we have to work together, guys. No, the implication is that "they" (Democrats) are the enemy. And in this terrible time, when the country is literally falling apart, and everybody is unsettled, these isolated Republicans are settling in to be critical. As if they aren't losing their savings, too; as if they are exempt; as if, should the country really fail, they wouldn't be affected. Quite a blind spot. isn't it. They aren't even pretending to help, to support, to work with their counterparts to make things better for everybody, themselves included. How antedeluvian, how "old school", how traditional, how like McCarthy and all of the Republican demogogues, to stand back and continue criticizing the Democrats who are working very hard, very earnestly, to fix what went wrong with this country. So Jeb Bush is nothing more than another toxic Republican, joining in the long line of negative right-wing naysayers and destroyers, no better than Limbaugh and Hannity and O'Reilly. Pretty disgusting, I'd say. Stand on the sidelines and criticize while the Titanic goes down; criticize everything the crew and captain does. Disgusting, guys, absolutely disgusting.
For more, see: www.ocpatriot-runningcomments.blogspot.com.
Paul| 12.4.08 @ 1:17PM
Chaplain Tomlinson: I appreciate your hearty defense of our President Bush, but your comparing him favorably vs. President Reagan is getting a bit too facile.
1. When Reagan raised the cap gains tax rate it was as a bargaining chip to get the marginal income tax rate down to 28%. I mentioned this to you you several months ago, you may recall.
2. No, Reagan did not disband the Dept of Education, but if you were in Mass. during the 1996 Kennedy - Romney senate race you'd have been amazed at the viciousness of the attacks Romney endured when he made the same proposal. And with a House under Democrat control Reagan would not have been successful in doing so. In any case Bush 43 saw the quixotic nature of this and abandoned it as well.
3. Reagan accelerated the emasculation of the Interstate Commerce Commission during his time in office; it was disbanded in 1994.
4. Reagan also put the Civil Aeronautics Board out of business in 1984.
5. Reagan dereugulated domestic oil prices in 1981.
6. Reagan put the FAA controllers union in its place - big time - in 1981.
Best Regards
frost| 12.4.08 @ 3:45PM
Going thru some notes in my computer from 4 1/2 years ago, back before General Portaeus' surge, when a series of McClellans were still goofing up a winable war -- shortly before I came to the reluctant conclusion that Dubya's gotta be tied with Jimmy Carter as the AllTimeWorst president ever; hell, his spending even exceeded LBJ, and that's saying a bunch. Anyway, from that file in May, '04, these observations (since compounded by other multiple goof-ups too numerous to mention, Mr. Tomlinson): Dubya's become a whore, no better than the worst of congress -- backed Kennedy's huge spending plan on education, the gigantic "farm bill" with Tom Daschle's amendments, signed the campaign finance law -- the 15+ Billion-dollar AIDS in Africa fiasco… among other things. Then, there were steel price supports. He also "folded" after opposition to ANWR was stated by the Greens, Democrats and stupid Republicans; didn't have the courage to push for more US oil. Worse? Bush inherited a horrible CIA and miserable intelligence; he finally replaced George Tenet, a horrible CIA boss, and presented him with the Medal of Freedom? This delusional president was heard to "express confidence" in the CIA -- then, was blocking an investigation of the intelligence failures? That's bad.
Further, he's agreed to those tax-rebate measures which include $$$s to "low income" people who haven't paid taxes. And he pushed again for an extension of unemployment benefits (Urban League speech 7/28/03); having an "audience" with Jesse Jackson when conservative blacks can't get a hearing or any backing. He failed to speak up on the U-of-Michigan affirmative action policy and other rulings by the Supremes, which included the states' rights position on sodomy.
The prescription drug pandering by Republicans has turned out to be another sad joke, and Dubya's been very quiet about that addition to creeping Socialized Medicine.
He was "in bed" with Mexico's Vicente Fox, and the border continues to be a sieve, and until he gets the INS working, if he ever does, and has the courage to shut down all illegal immigration, he's simply not doing his job! He never even spoke up on the subject of Drivers Licenses for Illegal aliens which, in so doing, is tantamount to giving it his blessing. Immigration "reform" it's called? And, oh, speaking of the "border" - pardon the departure - Dubya didn't back Miguel Estrada's judicial nomination sufficiently well - left him "hung-out-to-dry" - the Republican Senators didn't care enough to force an end to the Democrats' filibuster, which could have been done easily by simply working 'round-the-clock.. And, as if that weren't enough, finally (again), how 'bout that double standard with Israel? Sure, we can defend ourselves, but we ask the Israelis to reserve more patience than we would? But, wait-a-minute! "Defending ourselves" with a dopey color-threat system, searching Norwegian grandmothers (with a fear off offending Arabs through the legitimate profiling of potential terrorists) and the goofy incompetent, Norman Manetta as Transportation Secretary? His "covering" for the Saudi Arabians (spies supporting terrorists?) and calling 'em friends?.
And other things, like a major increase in the National Endowment for the Arts? Give me a break. Sorry George -- you ain't got my vote.
And, more recently (5/26/04) these additional points which add up to being a Disaster --
Cozying up to the UN and not pushing the Oil-For-Food corruption fiasco - a total; fraud with kickbacks, payoffs and "percentages." Then, the government's suit against the State of Oregon on the Assisted Suicide law (which had been approved by voters), which AttnyGen. John Ashcroft had railed against in earlier speeches. This suit was one of the very few ruled upon by the Ninth Circuit Court with which I agree; our government has no business trying to dictate what its individual states' citizens decide.
Okay, that was a partial critique from a number of years ago. He finally got things turned around in Iraq, 'way too late, and we're still fronting those abysmal costs -- he appointed a few judges, cut a few taxes, but, again, he's been totally inept, still tied with Carter for the dubious aforementioned distinction. God, he's been an awful president. And now, Obama?!? We'll be in Costa Rica in two weeks.
Alan Brooks| 12.4.08 @ 6:31PM
FDR, considered one of our greatest presidents, was a CONGENITAL LIAR. Even Truman thought so but Harry was too "nice" (whatever nice means) to say so very often. Truman was lucky FDR died so soon, if Truman had had to serve under him in peacetime it would have been unbearable for the honest Truman.
So being very dishonest doesn't always hurt an image in the history books. Nixon was rehabilitated. Carter, who was/is smarmy to the point of being very dishonest is loved like, um, Mandela...
frost| 12.4.08 @ 7:02PM
A gullible fool, Jimmy Carter's only meaningful achievement was helping Ronald Reagan get elected. For this and only this may we be grateful to him. Undoubtedly, the most dishonest politician I’ve ever read of is Jimmy Carter, period... said Bob Novak (one of the very few columnists I trust)
And, I can't help but wonder why do we even worry about Obama? If a guy like Jimmy Carter didn't ruin this country, no one can.
Remembering that it was H. L. Mencken who observed that ex-presidents should be hung in the interests of public sanitation, this additional quotation, if you can take one more: "Sometimes, when I look at all my children, I say to myself, 'Lillian, you should have stayed a virgin.'" - Lillian Carter (mother of -)....
C Marshall| 12.4.08 @ 9:10PM
Gee, OCPatriot, who knew Neal Gabler was such a deep thinker. I always thought he was a hack movie critic. It's mythology alright, liberal mythology.
ruth| 12.5.08 @ 1:43AM
OCPatriot, what a knee slapper!!! Your Obamassiah hasn't even been inaugurated and already you are haranguing us about our negativity. This after 8 years of your side screeching BUSHITLER!! Shut Up!
ruth| 12.5.08 @ 1:59AM
Mr. Tomlinson, I understand your defense of President Bush, but I do believe that it is a leader's primary duty to communicate with the people. I don't know why the president withdrew from us, but what good did it do him or the country to allow the hostile left/mainstream media define him and his policies? I think he bears a good deal of responsibility for our party's turmoil, and I think the saddest part is that it was so unnecessary. He is a good man who, I believe, is being unfairly maligned. We all are the poorer for his unwise decision to not use the bully pulpit more.
Pingback| 7.1.09 @ 1:37PM
Obama's honeymoon is over - now it's his recession - US Message Board - Political Di links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 7.9.09 @ 10:38PM
Great Yard Sign Explaining President Obama's Change - Page 3 - US Message Board - Po links to this page. Here’s an excerpt: