Reader Mail

One Reason Alone

This is what it means to be a Dem. As Obama's luck would have it. On Heath Shuler's side. Dream lineup. Kent State debate reignites. Plus more.

8.29.08

Send to Kindle

THAT AND MAYBE BIRKENSTOCKS
Re: G. Tracy Mehan, III's Is This What It Means to Be a Democrat?:

Even when hit between the eyes with the truth of Obama's extreme views on abortion, he still has much of the black Christian vote. I am amazed at the "kill the messenger" anger at me from fellow black Christians for bringing up the subject. It is as if putting a black in the White House in 2008 trumps morality and Christian values. Consider the sin of idolatry of "race."

In Illinois, when a baby is born alive surviving abortion, it still has no right to life. Some infants are denied medical assistance and left to die. One death took almost 8 hours. A nurse recalls rocking a baby for 40 minutes until it passed.

Legislation was attempted to "change" this evil. Apparently this is not the kind of change Mr. Candidate of Change has in mind. With Obama's help, the legislation to protect the lives of newborns died. So, how do you black Christians square this with your hearts, minds and God to still vote Obama?
-- Lloyd Marcus
Deltona, Florida

G. Tracy Mehan III has got it exactly wrong when he states that he's hoping pro-life Democrats don't care what abortion-on-demand types like Nora Ephron think.

Here's hoping they do -- and become Republicans or Independents as a result.
-- Arnold Ahlert
Boca Raton, Florida

This is what it Means to be a Democrat:

1. Abortion on demand right up until the day of delivery (and even after that)
2. Peace through weakness
3. Appease our enemies (evil)
4. Play to tie not to win
5. Pro choice for abortion, no choice in schools (Obama sends his kids to private schools; George Bush's kids went to public schools)
6. Government socialized health care (however Hillary won't wait in line for her hysterectomy, Bill won't wait in line to have his erectile dysfunction addressed, Obama won't wait in line to have his ears pinned back, all us peons will wait in line)
7. So called Fairness Doctrine
8. No drilling, no nuclear, no coal
9. Global warming (huh)
10. Homosexual agenda (affirmative action to correct past discrimination...therefore quotas in the military academies)
11. Feminist agenda (see above)
12. Reparations
13. Political correctness
14. Mandatory day care
15. Euthanasia
16. Blame America
17. Higher taxes for everyone (even those who don't pay taxes)
18. Redistribution of wealth

This is not a complete list, however if you do not buy the whole package you will be left (Left) out of the party (Party).
-- Fred Edwards
Tucson, Arizona

Watching leftist women's groups defend Bill Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal should have awoken you to the fact that the Democratic Party is the party of abortion. Nothing has changed in the last ten years.
-- David McGinley
McLean, Virginia

HOW ELSE?
Re: Andrew Cline's The Lucky One?:

Lucky Barack. How did he get so far so fast? It's pretty simple. In this country, we all love a charade.
-- Diane Smith

Barack Obama is certainly talented, for a politician. He is handsome, articulate, and a man who appeals to black voters without disturbing white voters because of his race. In other words, exactly as Joe Biden described him. His people play political hardball to win; eliminating competition by any means necessary. And he was fortunate, in his early career when legislative seats became available quickly. But do not be lulled into believing that it was only luck and talent that elevated The Chosen One to the Democratic Presidential nomination. He is rightly called the Chosen One and not because he was chosen by the voters.

Politics, especially national politics, is a business and it is run much like professional boxing. You don't get a title shot on your own or through your managers. There are people, interests if you will, that exercise a tremendous amount of control over national politics. This is not to suggest that there exists a shadowy cabal with secret handshakes and midnight meetings in secluded chambers. But there are powerful movers and shakers who form alliances to sponsor politicians for their own purposes. These groups sometimes work together and sometimes work in opposition and sometimes have the same short term objective for opposing reasons. I know that this sounds like conspiracy fantasy, but bear with me a moment, please.

The political parties in this country do not represent the People. They represent, in fact have always represented, special interests. Why, because that is where their money and power come from. A case in point is young Mr. Obama.

Here we have a young man who is a poster child for political championship, for all of the above stated reasons. He is lucky in that he comes to the attention of certain interests based in or near Chicago Illinois. Through their efforts, he is assured a seat on the Illinois legislature. When a U.S. Senate seat became available, Obama, a candidate with far too little political experience [and unlike politicians such as Ted Kennedy who had name recognition] to even have a significant chance to attract enough votes to defeat the experienced politicians vying for that seat, suddenly is running virtually unopposed as sealed divorce papers are made public, destroying his opposition. Now, two years later, he is running for President. Not even JFK moved that fast in his political career. So how does an obscure Illinois politician, with little personal wealth, position and name recognition get to this point?

He is the center of a political Perfect Storm. There are a variety of groups supporting him for various reasons, many of whom we may never identify. There are obviously groups who want him to occupy the White House; some because of who he is and some because of who he isn't, Hillary Clinton. Some want him in the race because of his opponent, John McCain. These groups see his candidacy as less likely to defeat McCain than a Clinton candidacy. The evidence that supports these theories is out there and can be readily found by anyone interested looking for it [hint: lack of MSM scrutiny of Obama, media ignoring John Edwards affair story as he siphoned off Clinton voters in the primaries, and even Limbaugh's Operation Chaos].

No one gets a title shot without sanction from one of the controlling organizations in the business of national politics, the Democrat and Republican parties. And, as I pointed out earlier, these organizations are controlled by special interests. So, is Barack Obama's rise in national parties a result of talent and luck? Yes, that and a group of powerful rabbi's; the political kind, not the religious kind.
-- Michael Tobias

I must take issue with Mr. Cline, who calls Mr. Obama "one of the most naturally gifted American politicians in the last half century." After reading the circumstances of his elections, I see only luck, and a healthy dose of chicanery.

As for Mr. Obama's alleged oratorical skills, it has become abundantly clear that he is fine when he is reading prepared speeches, which I firmly believe are written by other people, and abysmal when he has no script in front of him. Furthermore, to my ears, his manner of speaking becomes ever more infused with an arrogance that reminds one of the execrable Mr. Kerry. Mr. Obama "talks down" to all of us.

Mr. Obama's positions on taxes, the economy, and on how government should work, would make Karl Marx smile in approval. He tells us what we cannot do, and his loathsome wife tells us that he will "require" us to do this and that, in total ignorance of the fact that our elected officials are subordinate to the people who elect them, not the other way around. Mr. Obama does not want to be our President, but our Ruler. A bas Obama!
-- W. B. Heffernan, Jr.

What talent does Obama have other than the ability to read a prepared speech on a teleprompter? He is ignorant of American history, world history, economics, foreign affairs, and geography, just to name a few subjects.
-- Bruce Johnson
North Vernon, Indiana

There is only one catch phrase that comes to my mind when looking at the Messiah's back drop for his ascension speech in Denver tonight.

The Temple of Doom.
-- Craig Sarver
Seattle, Washington

WRONG PARTY LIFERS
Re: W. James Antle III's Lifelong Democrats:

You gave a good report about the pro-life Democrats, and how they justify staying in the Democrat party. They are in the wrong party, though. First of all, millions of Republicans freely and generously give their time, talent, and treasure to the pro-life cause by volunteering at crisis pregnancy centers, donating blankets and other items to help poor mothers, and at the national level, Bush 41 and Bush 43 appointed judges such as Thomas, Roberts, and Alito who ruled to uphold a partial birth abortion ban. Conservative Republicans individually, and in office have worked and continue to work to change the minds and hearts of people on abortion.

A bigger question is what has Bob Casey Jr. done for the cause? He has a 65 percent approval rating from NARAL, and he believes that the morning-after pill is simply contraception. Furthermore, why doesn't Casey criticize his party more, as his father did for their pro-abortion stance, instead of just saying that he disagrees with Obama, and many of his fellow Democrats?

Finally, everyone should strive to help others lead a better, freer life. Democrats aim to do this by creating programs that keep the poor poor, and dependent on the government. The more dependent the less fortunate are on government, the less freedom they have. Republicans, by and large, believe in lifting the poor out of poverty to become more autonomous human beings.

Pro-life Democrats have a place in that party, and the Democrat leadership makes sure they stay in that place.
-- Jenny

My father is a lifelong, pro-life, Catholic Democrat. The ONLY reason he ever voted GOP was over the abortion issue. He went back to voting Dem when he determined that the GOP talked a good game but essentially did nothing.

As an aside, I found the statement concerning John Paul II's condemnation of "excessive individualism" refreshing. I certainly don't agree that such a thing is a problem (I believe we have quite the opposite problem in America these days). The popes have openly hated American "liberty of conscience," "freedom of religion," and "excessive individualism" (and their decrees have stated so)... I just haven't seen too many people willing to admit it!

Take away marriage and abortion and the RCC is a leftist organization (living wage, Israel, death penalty, open borders, redistribution of wealth, property rights, Iraq, etc.). John Adams was right to warn us of her tyranny. She's older than the USA and plans to outlive us.
-- Michael Scotto
Greensboro, North Carolina

Germany has a lower abortion rate than the United States because they require that before an abortion can be performed a woman receives mandatory counseling, and a waiting period. They also make available enhanced ultrasound to show that what is inside the woman is a baby....not a fetus.
-- Fred Edwards
Tucson, Arizona

ALTERNATIVE TYRRELL
Re: R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.'s The Mainstream Moron Media:

I am having an epiphany here of a new classic AmSpec button to join the revered "Drop It" one from 1967 -- a simple white button with a hackneyed Euro "No" Sign of zero and bar with "M cubed" inscribed on it.

Now MY leg is tingling.
-- Cookie Sewell
Socialist Republic of Maryland

I followed RET's lead by boycotting television coverage of the Peking Olympics. That was tough. Boycotting the Democratic National Convention has been a breeze. So thank you, RET, for the update on the Denver proceedings.

The Clintons may not be political geniuses, unless, of course, they had a hand in the selection of Joe Biden. What better way to advance Hillary in 2012?
-- Dan Martin
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Memo to Emmett Tyrrell: "Clintons in retirement" is an oxymoron.
-- Arnold Ahlert
Boca Raton, Florida

Dear Ed: Congratos. Today's columns comprise an interesting panopoly of a major party's boundless toxicity. Each and every effort illustrates in a unique way, the comprehensive and mindnumbing consistency of the Donkey-party's pathology. I remember the thrilling days of yesteryear when I covered my room windows with JFK stickers. Thrilled to think this wonderful man, this papist, this wunderkind, would take the helm of our beloved ship of state. Sure I was a mere lad of 14 but my heart brimmed with confidence and hope and certainty that his election was inevitable and wisely so. Later, I actually ran as a Democrat... Three times I carried the banner of Jefferson, and Jackson ...and Adlai. And won three times too. The bloom came off the rose, though.

In later years I gave speeches to district conventions saying that the country and its public treasury owed more to honorably discharged vets than unproductive drones born to the world with no more entitlement than an extended hand. And I recall the resounding silence those speeches engendered. I remember the party meetings with teacher union honchos yakking about the breathtaking efforts to form the melons of America's incipient "great minds." By that time, it had occurred to me that the only thing that kept public schools honest were the private schools, not the teachers or their unions. Anyway, after I called the union factotum on the point, a retreaded Socialist party vet opined that years before, when she attended school, everyone laughed at the Catholic kids because "they were so stupid." I know now, and knew then that the termagant's opinion was not one widely shared, but no one in the room expressed disagreement. My epiphany was complete. There was no room at the Democratic Inn for me.

This is not to say I am a Republican. The Canons of Judicial ethics prohibit membership in a partisan organization, but the Republicans are too often not conservative so there is no angst about not carrying their card either.

Today's columns encapsulated many of the contemporary pathologies of the Democratic Party, 2008 edition. Nora "Abortion, first last and always " Ephron. John "the late and unlamented" Edwards. John Kerry, still bitter, still complaining, still clueless. The Mainstream Media: venal, duplicitous, banal. Pro-life Democrats: isolated, scorned, marginalized to the max. And finally, Obama himself. The candidate without humor, without much grace. Without credential, without heft, without reality. Yes Ed, you put together a selection of memory lane vignettes that warmed the cockles of my old, conservative, surgically repaired heart. Thanks I guess.
-- J.C. Eaton
Wisconsin

FEARLESS PREDICTIONS
Re: Quin Hillyer's Dream Ticket Memories:

Thanks for that article. I was 18 in 1980, and saw Ronald Wilson Reagan as the only man capable of pulling the US out of the "Carter Fog." I was proud to register and vote for this great American. (I wanted, for the first time in my life, to be able to be proud of my country...have I heard that somewhere before?)

I wasn't aware of the VP fight, and I want to thank you for sharing that, and also for reminding everyone that the VP needs to be the next great leader, just in case.

Since we're on the subject, it'll be Cantor. McCain has events on Friday and Sunday with the VP candidate, but not Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath. My take, anyway. We'll know tomorrow.
-- Vic Austin
Brighton, Tennessee

WHAT IN SAM HILL?!
Re: Samuel A. Hill's letter (under "Psyched") in Reader Mail's A Touch of Evil:

Quoth Samuel A. Hill, on Dubya:

"Declared two unconstitutional wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq."

Memo to Sam: Perhaps you've forgotten, but POTUS cannot declare war -- only Congress can do that -- but, unlike the oath of office (Article II, Section 1) -- there is no constitutionally-mandated language for such a declaration. In H.J. Res 114 (2002), Congress authorized the C-in-C to use military force against whichever entities he determined to have been complicit in the attacks of September 11th, 2001. What more, sir, do you desire?
-- David Gonzalez
Wheeling, Illinois

NO APOLOGIES
Re: Kate Shaw's letter (under "Kent State Adults") in Reader Mail's A Touch of Evil:

Okay, this time there will be no apologies. I must once again defend myself against baseless ad hominem attacks, rather than simply argue the point. First, as to my education. I went to college for the hard sciences, not the liberal arts. My professors spent their time teaching me about evaluation of data, experimental procedures, higher mathematics, and statistical analysis. Though I was of course required to spend at least some time taking those core classes, once out of them I avoided the liberal arts departments because of the very vial of which Kate speaks.

Are my arguments sophomoric and condescending? Well, they were certainly sardonic and I figured with all the mentions of coffee and the pokes at my own rhetoric someone would realize that I was trying really hard not to take myself too seriously. I'll accept condescending, it's a general problem with me that I tend to appear to be so. But, sophomoric? Only if you consider belief in absolute morality to be sophomoric. See, I don't accept the validity of situational ethics, or the use of the ends to justify the means. I also don't care much for sophistry. If you're going to call my argument sophomoric, please at least show me that you heard what my argument was. I was not creating a equation of the Kent State protestors to those in Tiananmen Square. I was equating the response of the government. For you see, a Tyrant is not such because others call him so. A Tyrant is such because of his actions. And the use of military against civilian protestors, that is tyranny. It was in 1775 when it was the British. Or would you also argue that the American colonists should not have protested the actions of the British government because they were the freest people of their time?

Again, I say, the use of military against civilian protests is tyrannical, and that is true regardless of the situation. Just because it was the American government doing this doesn't make it right, or even acceptable. In fact, it might even make it worse as not only was it tyrannical it was also a violation the principles of this country, and demonstrates an inherent weakness in the government in question. Are we such a weak country that we cannot allow for some to protest the actions of this country? Which is the stronger, the man who accepts ridicule and responses in kind or not at all, or the one who punches the ridiculer in the mouth?

And so I must ask this question. What, exactly, protects Americans from tyrannical action of the government? Supposedly our constitution is one such protection, but paper shields are poor ones. Our democratic institutions? I'll not bother listing all the times in history that a democracy ended up in tyranny, but I will point out that the inherent danger of democracy is that it allows the many to override the few. And if you think this is okay, you should realize that you are almost certainly in the minority on at least one issue, and it might just be an issue that is important to you. There is but one thing that can protect Americans from tyrannical government; constant vigilance. And part of that is recognizing that our government is capable of taking incorrect, even tyrannical, action. Our government has engaged in tyrannical action in the past, and if we wish to avoid such action in the future, we must start by recognizing those times in our past and ensure that we, the people, keep our government from engaging in such again.

And finally, let us do try and to remember something. Any society, and idea, any movement must be constantly refreshed with the new generation, or it will die away. The conservative movement should be doing its best to reach out to the next generation (yes, I mean 'my' generation [that's a statement of inclusion, not ownership]). This might mean that instead of insulting those who argue against you, you might try providing an actual argument and keep it on point. Making groundless assumptions, heaping scorn, and refusing to even acknowledge the point of those who disagree with us are the tools of the sophist. Or as we call them today, liberals.
-- Charles Campbell
Austin, Texas

BANDWAGONEERS
Re: Ira Kessel's letter (under "In All Seriousness") in Reader Mail's A Touch of Evil:

Ira, I grok.

Smith in '08.
-- Charles Campbell
Austin, Texas

Like this Article

Print this Article

Print Article