Reader Mail

Gettin’ Bossy

All about management styles. Constitutionally opposed. Arguing with Stoners. Plus more.

1.22.09

Send to Kindle

CALL ME IRRESPONSIBLE
Re: Peter Ferrara's Obama's Responsibility:

I can assure you that the people will not hold Obama responsible for any failures of his doomed presidency, contrary to the dreary refrain of this article. The news and entertainment industries have invested billions in his messiahship and Joe Biden warned his people during the campaign to stand with the new administration as the crises it faces in its early months unfold. Excuses ad infinitum will be summoned to defend Jimmy "Malaise"
Carter II. Just as FDR profited from a protracted depression, so will Obama. Yes he can!!

No, the very people who voted for air headed speeches about change and hope voted for a socialist cradle to grave vision and they will reap it in spades -- the bankster bailouts started by Bush are proof positive that Americans do not hold anyone responsible for failures. The road to serfdom under totalitarian tutelage is the change and hope Obama elusively referenced for the intellectual elite and at that point holding anyone responsible will be an invitation to personal danger.
-- David Bonn

ANTICIPATING THE BOSS'S WHIM
Re: David Hogberg's The New Boss:

We missed a great economic opportunity my friends. When one starts compounding the slavish media coverage interspersed with all the gushing interviews of hope-filled voters and sycophantic celebrities, we conservatives needed some relief, some sign of real hope:

We should’ve bought stock in a barf-bag company.
-- P. Aaron Jones
Michigan


If at the very moment of innermost acceptance, half-black, half-white Obama chooses to identify himself as black instead of a proud American mongrel (like most of us), what hope is there that Martin Luther King’s dream of a color-blind society will ever eventuate here? None, apparently, judging from the statements of many Democrats perfectly happy with the divisive status quo.
-- David Govett
Davis, California


Barack Obama has been my President for less than an hour, as I write this, and I have already noticed great changes! To my list, David Hogberg adds that entrepreneurial activity has spiked in our nation's capital, though I'm sorry he didn't get his free T-shirt.

Has anyone else noticed:

. the price of gasoline is below $2 per gallon
. victory has been achieved in Iraq
. Israel and Hamas have reached a cease-fire
. Mother Earth herself seems to be cooling
. personal responsibility is back in vogue, as Americans in record numbers purchase guns.

Forget his first hundred days -- what else has this great man in store for us in his first hundred minutes?
-- Dan Martin
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

THE LAST HURRAH
Re: Lisa Fabrizio's Ho-Hum for Hollywood:

Ms. Fabrizio is partially correct that the Left greatest (vindictive) triumph was bringing down President Nixon (through holding him responsible for his actions), but she is assuming the game for W. is no longer afoot.  Alas, Attorney General nominee Eric Holder has made himself clear:  water boarding is torture.  Torture is illegal and was so under the Bush administration; therefore, Bush and his agents perpetrated numerous criminal acts. The next logical step in this chain is to prosecute the offenders.

Be vewwy quiet, the Loony Left is Bush hunting.
-- Ira M. Kessel
Rochester, New York

THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T WAIT AROUND BEFORE SCREWING UP
Re: Jeffrey Lord's Reagan's Third Inaugural Address:

Your article says in part:

"It was the government's Smoot-Hawley tariff that dropped a protectionist wall around an America desperate for the jobs and economic growth that can only be provided by free trade."

Not true. The "protectionist wall" was put up in 1828, not 1931. At the time of Smoot-Hawley tariffs were already high.
-- James H. Murphy

IT WOULD TAKE AN ACTION HERO TO AVERT DISASTER
Re: Chris Reed's Putting Government First:

Chris Reed puts a fine point on part of the problem in California, and it’s a shame that we are saddled with a never-ending stream of career idiots in the Governor’s Mansion. None have had the strength of character or conviction to do the really hard work of righting this listing ship as it founders. Spending cuts and tax cuts are the only solutions that will revive this once Titanic economy. Alas, like the Titanic the gash below the waterline is going to remain hidden as the MSM in California continues to oversell the failed socialist policies. We will fail because ever-increasing spending by people so drunk on their own power that they will drown before admitting they’ve failed. In the meantime, small business owners and people who actually have jobs and pay taxes suffer their folly until we all go down with the ship.
-- Greg Mercurio
Vacaville, California

FAULTY PREMISES
Re: Andrew Cline's Obama vs. James Madison:

Between Article One of the United States Constitution section 8, clause 18, aka “The Necessary and Proper Clause,”, stating: “The Congress shall have Power -- To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof,” and the Tenth Amendment, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” made perfectly clear that Mr. Cline’s repudiation of President Obama’s vision is correct and well principled.   

President/Messiah Obama offered, "The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works -- whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end."  The Prez/Savior is letting the public know, the age of big government is back -- with a vengeance.

The federal government can provide services, such as domestic defense that cannot be provided by any other person or collective, but for most services, the government is far from the most efficient provider; in fact, it is often the most costly and cumbersome solution. The federal government, by adding multilayer bureaucracies and redundant, often self-contradictory, rules, more often hinders service than it does facilitate it. If Mr. Obama cares to ask what does the government do better than the private sector, the answer will be not much, but he starts the a priori assumption that government has a solid record of delivering the goods. This completely ignores history and current fact.

If one begins with the wrong questions, one cannot arrive at the right answers.
-- Ira M. Kessel
Rochester, New York

A FALSE HOPE
Re: Robert Stacy McCain's Inaugural Memories:

I am curious. Will today's inauguration end Al Gore's tantrum?
-- Reid Bogie
Waterbury, Connecticut

Sorry...but I couldn't bring myself to turn on the TV yesterday. I wasn't about to join in and sing Kumbayah with what SEEMED to be -- or was presented by the press to be -- the rest of the country. I find it quite hypocritical that those same folks who feverishly disrespected former President Bush are now saying "let's join together in unity."

And, you know what...conservatives, like me, WILL. That's because we truly love our country and respect the office. I also think it's ludicrous that kids are wearing Obama shirts like he is a Hollywood star or something. Let's all get with the program. We are experiencing scary times. This isn't a rock concert!
-- Myrna Haskell
Salt Point, New York

DISEASE CAN ALSO KILL YOU
Re: David Catron's Obamacare Could Kill You:

Perhaps the author could explain how needed medical care that is too expensive for those unable to afford insurance can be obtained?
-- Steve Schaper

REFUTED HYPOTHETICALS
Re: James F. Stoner's letter (under "But That's Not Saying Much") in Reader Mail's Let the Spree Begin!

Basically, Mr. Stoner's letter represents the point of view of the Left: President George W. Bush deserves no credit for what he did.

On Mr. Stoner's specific points:

(1) It is impossible to prove a negative. One cannot say George W. Bush prevented the attacks-that-didn't-happen anymore than one can support Mr. Stoner's thesis and say he increased the likelihood of more attacks happening in the future. This is merely an attempt to pin responsibility on a president who is about to leave office for events in the future.

(2) One can compare "the role George W. Bush played" with the way his predecessor, Bill Clinton, conducted himself in office in relation to terror incidents.

(3) I cannot say what Mr. Stoner means by "insufficient troops." With the numbers actually used, the government of Saddam Hussein was driven from power in short order; wrapping up the guerilla war that followed took longer but has been completed now.

(4) If George W. Bush's actions increased the likelihood of future terror incidents -- what prompted the terrorists to attack the United States before?

One can see this in three stages: (1) Terrorists will always find an excuse to attack, (2) someone will always find a way to fault the manner in which any response is conducted, and (3) Success cannot be assessed, but failure is immediately recognizable.

In a few hours as I write this, the responsibility will be on the shoulders of someone other than George W. Bush. One would hope the new president would take success or failure graciously, and not get caught in an attempt to assign blame to a previous administration.
-- Robert Nowall
Cape Coral, Florida

James A.F. Stoner owns up to red-faced mortification when Philip Klein gives President Bush “plus” marks by stating: “[He] prevented another terrorist attack on American soil.” Throwing a wet blanket over Mr. Klein’s reckless statement, Stoner insists on steadfast agnosticism with his own carefully crafted avowal: “The statement is simply impossible to prove.” No brownie points for the departing Commander-in-Chief.

But suddenly, we burst forth from looking through the glass darkly into the brilliant sunshine of a fresh spring day. To the point: “there is good reason to suspect many of his actions...actually increased the likelihood of future attacks on American soil.”

Not that “Death to America” was a newly minted Mideast playground rhyme after President Clinton sent a few choice cruise missiles into Baghdad. 

Let us get this straight. We cannot know if Bush prevented any attacks at all; but (although we have nothing concrete to point to) “[Bush’s] actions have very likely increased the likelihood of future attacks from a still active al-Qaeda and perhaps others who have become enemies of America because of his decisions (if they were his decisions).”

To support this conjecture, Stoner goes into the same tedious series of speculations we’ve heard over and over again since the first Marine put his boots on the ground to put Osama in harms way. I suppose they think that if they say it enough it just has to be true.

So to reiterate our lesson: in the absence of evidence, we can’t say Bush prevented any terrorist attacks on American soil -- in the absence of evidence, we must conclude the likelihood of future attacks on American soil have worsened.
-- Mike Dooley

P.S. We appreciate Mr. Stoner’s insistence on qualifying Bush’s actions with such phases as “if they were his decisions,” “if they were his actions” and “if it was his.” It is nice Mr. Stoner keeps an open mind as to the possibility “it” really wasn’t Bush’s fault. Christian charity is a wonderful thing.

HOPEFUL SIGNS
Re: George Neumayr's The Day After:

Now more than ever liberalism is defined as the pursuit of interest group power. Take heart, like the greedy protons drawn to a nuclear core, their inherent opposition to each other will cause the explosion apart. The coalition is fraught with contradictions: hedonism vs. state control, ethnic assertion vs. hedonism, global trade vs. protectionism, unions vs enviromentalism, etc.  After the detonation and disconsolation, the conservative verities will endure as before. Our best days are still ahead.
-- Timothy O'Neill
Pompano Beach, Florida

HALF-HEARTED MACHIAVELLIANS
Re: Jeremy Lott's Machiavelli's Revenge:

So Bush and Rice started a war and invaded a country and then worried that they would be too Machiavellian! How did people so stupid get so far? No wonder events turned out the way they did.
-- Christopher Holland
Canberra, Australia

Like this Article

Print this Article

Print Article