The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

Reader Mail

Just Say No

Republicans finally find their role. Newer, but better? Gran letdown. Plus more.

NEIN
Re: Philip Klein’s Getting to No:

One is startled by one of the author’s conclusions (see his last paragraph), that the Republicans are acting hypocritically. However, given their performance over the past many years, clearly it is true. This is just more self-serving behavior, no doubt. But if that is so, then we have a serious Catch-22 to deal with. If the Republicans do the “right thing,” they may someday get back into power. If they someday get back into power, we know (given that they are self-serving hypocrites) what to expect (nothing good, to be sure). Perhaps the very best scenario, from a conservative point of view, is for the Republicans to remain the minority party forever, to continue their hypocritical stance against all that they really believe in. And, as the old Jewish (I think it’s Jewish) saying goes, “If you pretend long enough, even God will be fooled.”
David Reich
Auburn, New York


I listened to Robert Gibbs, the new White House Press Spin-etary, attack the Republicans for voting against the latest quasi-legal bribery scam (the so-called “stimulus package”).

His opening salvo was that we have to change the way things are done in Washington — meaning, of course, that the Republicans should start voting the Democratic Party line.

When pressed to explain why it wasn’t rather that the Republicans were voting their principles, he said that the Press should ask them because he “couldn’t get inside their mindset.”

Curious that! He was able to “get inside their mindset” when he accused them of being politically obstructionist, if not downright heretical.

For the Democrats, “bipartisanship” applies only to Republicans, who are supposed to vote the Democrats’ party line and against their own principles.

Of course, you could accept the Obamatruth that when Obama “won the election,” it nullified the wishes of the other half the American who voted against him and his policies.
A. C. Santore


While we’re saluting the Nay Sayers, a strong salute to Army Col. James Pohl, the military judge at Gitmo who refused the White House request to suspend the trial of USS Cole terror mastermind Abd al-Nashiri.

Col. Pohl stated his refusal was to “protect the public interest in a speedy trial” by the military tribunal set up by Congress and Pres. Bush in 2006. Maybe the military judges trying the admitted mastermind killers of 9/11 will stand up to liberal pressure and proceed with their duty to our people as well. At the very least, our military that risked their lives to catch these villains are not about to allow the killers of 17 US sailors in the port of Yemen to escape the hangman’s noose. God bless them.
Tim O’Neill
Pompano Beach, Florida


One has only to compare pre-election speeches of both the incumbent and his one-time female opponent to the publications of the ADA in the early ‘60’s to see the source of their radical departure from the admonitions of Washington so long ago. Not that they were/are the first, but certainly the most extreme. Schlesinger at Harvard probably wrote their dialogues which are about as socialist as anything ever produced by the Fabians. A NIV translation of Ecclesiastes 10:2 says it all: “The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left. Even as he walks along the road, the fool lacks sense and shows how stupid he is.”
Ellen McClay


Page: 1 2 3   Last ›

Letter to the Editor View all comments (13) |

Ted| 2.2.09 @ 8:04AM

The Joint Chiefs of Staff HAVE AN ABSOLUTE CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY to stand behind Guantanamo Military Judge James Pohl UNTIL OBAMA OVERCOMES “RES IPSA LOQUITUR” BY SUPPLYING HIS LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE AND PROVING HIS ELIGIBILITY TO BE PRESIDENT UNDER ARTICLE 2 OF THE US CONSTITUTION.

frost| 2.2.09 @ 8:35AM

Mr. Rainier and Mr. van Essen said some mighty important stuff. David Bonn too, although I don't subscribe to his "social" conservatism. I remain astounded that there are still some real coherent thinkers around, folks who haven't been brainwashed by the all-knowing and uber-sanctimonious media and pundits.
Nah, actually that queezy feeling is probably fostered by the McCain, Chester Trent Lott, Susan Collins/Olympia Snowe contingency in DC; the many wimpy Republicans of recent years wanting (so very much) to be liked/accepted by their peers and creepy-crawlers within the Beltway -- you know, the Chris Matthews types, and those who worship at the shrine of Christine Anampour. I'm fairly certain one exists....
Good stuff -- keep it coming, please!

Frank| 2.2.09 @ 10:55PM

Ted,

Enough is enough. Born of or to an American citizen makes one an American citizen - period, full stop, end of story. Even were Obama born outside of the United States, your argument is moot and distracting.

Ted| 2.3.09 @ 7:44AM

"Citizen" as under the Constitution's 14th Amendment is not the issue.

The issue is "natural born citizen" pertaining to unique qualification for President under the Constitution's Article 2.

"citizen" does NOT equal "natural born citizen"

jhjh| 11.23.09 @ 8:08PM

TOD Converter Mac,
TOD File Converter Mac

ytuytu| 3.1.10 @ 10:07PM

iPod to PC Transfer,
iPod to PC Transfer

More Articles From Reader Mail

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/02/02/just-say-no

ADVERTISEMENT

Most Popular Articles

Obama and the IRS: The Smoking Gun?

Jeffrey Lord | 5.20.13

My Generation’s Disease

Benjamin Brophy | 5.17.13

The Liberal Union Behind the IRS

Jeffrey Lord | 5.16.13

Not Ready for Primetime Players

Daniel J. Flynn | 5.17.13

It's.The.Law

Ross Kaminsky | 5.20.13

Oops, Maybe Government is Tyrannical

Marta H. Mossburg | 5.17.13

Assessing a Week of Scandal

Matt Purple | 5.17.13

ADVERTISEMENT