BUT CAN HE WALK THE WALK?
Re: Robert Stacy McCain's All American Maverick:
Memo to Andrew Sullivan: there's a vast gulf between, on the one hand, contrasting McCain, "who has always put the country first, worked across party lines to get things done," etc., with his opponent, "who has not," and, on the other hand, "savag[ing] the opponent as a traitor." Those who are not in the tank for the world's most famous community organizer might interpret Sen. Liebermann's remarks to mean simply that Sen. Obama just hasn't done much, an easily demonstrated contention.
I swear, these Leftists have tender sensibilities. In response to Tom Ridge's remark, "There are red states and blue states, but we need a president who is red, white and blue," can't you imagine the Obamastanis screaming, "There! Did you hear that? He said 'white'!"
Clinging to God and my gun,
-- Stephen Foulard
Robert Stacy McCain is too easily swayed and frightened by polls. While John McCain may be slightly behind or even tied with Obama in the polls the good news is Obama isn't doing as well as his Democrat predecessors at this time in the election cycle. Even with all the potentially illegal foreign donations and biased media coverage he just isn't generating the avalanche of support needed to get him elected. Unless he has a major stumble, health crisis, succumbs to a Democrat dirty trick or Democrats can blatantly steal the election John McCain will be president, poll or no poll.
For those who doubt my confidence a little history lesson is in order. In December 1980 TIME magazine wrote, "For weeks before the presidential election, the gurus of public opinion polling were nearly unanimous in their findings. In survey after survey, they agreed that the coming choice between President Jimmy Carter and Challenger Ronald Reagan was 'too close to call.' A few points at most, they said, separated the two major contenders. But when the votes were counted, the former California Governor had defeated Carter by a margin of 51% to 41% in the popular vote -- a rout for a U.S. presidential race. In the Electoral College, the Reagan victory was a 10-to-l avalanche that left the President holding only six states and the District of Columbia... At the heart of the controversy is the fact that no published survey detected the Reagan landslide before it actually happened." Gallup's November pre-election poll had immensely unpopular Carter winning with 44% of the vote to senior citizen Reagan's 41%. Even more startling is how unacceptable Ronald Reagan was, considering his later popularity, in pre-election polls -- Poll Finds Reagan-Carter Choice Unsatisfactory to Half of Public. Despite the polls, Ronald Reagan won and the rest is history.
Here are some more golden oldies that should make Robert Stacy McCain and others ready to usher in the messianic age of Obama reconsider "the hope of audacious change:" "Poll Shows Dukakis Leads Bush," "Many Reagan Backers Shift Sides;" "About those polls -- political polls show Michael Dukakis leading George Bush"; "Dukakis takes 17 point lead over George Bush!" even in late July headlines read "Dukakis Lead Widens, According to New Poll."
In 2004 Kerry was a shoo-in to beat George W. Bush -- or so the media would have had the public believe -- CNN regularly had headlines like "Kerry Leads Bush in New Poll"; in Europe Kerry was all the rage Europe backs the challenger; the critical swing voters were all for Kerry too Uncommitted Voters Give Kerry Nod; even in fundraising the Francophile Kerry was dazzling the media and DC elites Kerry Beats Bush, Sets New Records for Any Candidate Ever in a Single Quarter or a Single Month. Sounding all too familiar?
Even Democrat stooge and apologist Dan Rather warns, "A few words about these polls. First and foremost, no matter whom one wants to see in the White House, paying close attention to summer polls is pure folly. Some say to this line of reasoning, 'Sure, but look at Michael Dukakis, for example: He was up 17 points over George H.W. Bush in 1988.' And Dukakis lost â€" so what, precisely, is the point here?" Since 1968 all but 2 Presidents (Southern Democrats Carter and Clinton) have been Republicans so why should we believe 2008 is going to be any different? Had Ford and Bush 41 attacked their opponents sooner they'd have won too. They waited too long to hit the unknown Democrats where it hurts in their "experience" or obvious lack of it. McCain is correctly slamming Obama now and will continue to do so right up until the election. Obama may be so arrogant he can take the American voters for granted, but prayerfully we've not become as stupid as Europeans and will hand Obama the butt whoop'n he richly deserves.
What about party affiliation? What about it -- the GOP is back to Reagan-era levels and the Democrats lost 2% of their support in just the last month. Party affiliation now stands at 31% Republican and 39% Democrat. We've bottomed out and they're on a downward trend thanks to a feisty GOP and a rich, liberal, Democrat elite indifferent or even sympathetic to higher gasoline prices for working Americans. Maybe we should start asking "what happens if the Democrats' numbers continue to plummet?"
Time to accept the inevitable, John McCain, if he continues to campaign aggressively, is going to the 44th President of the United States and Barack Obama is going to be the first black with a Muslim heritage to win the Democrat party nomination for President, the first Democrat not to know how many states there are and how long presidents can serve, the recipient of the most potentially illegal foreign donations in Presidential politics (even more than Bill Clinton and John Kerry) or more accurately still the same old loser he was before this November.
-- Michael Tomlinson
Camp Habbaniyah, Iraq
Re: Lawrence Henry's Do They All Do It?:
I read Lawrence Henry's piece this morning and, pondering the observation of the Boston DJ, was caused to wonder if what he is saying is "Trollops being trollops, it's just fine to lower one's self to their level," which strikes me as a variant on the old (and, I thought, discredited) "She was asking for it" excuse. It seems to me that what is revealed in this tomcatting are failures of respect and discipline; beginning with the self and rolling outward.
-- Reid Bogie
Mr. Henry writes about Rielle Hunter, "Rielle Hunter is 43 years old, not particularly attractive, and sprouts all the signs of trouble: She's a New Age goof. She has no particular talent. She worms into the good graces of accomplished men. She would get pregnant, and she did. She would stick like snot on suede, and she'd pry money, which she has done."
I must take issue with this particular passage, as it seems to be filled with all sorts of speculation about Ms. Hunter, and has the tenor of an excuse for Mr. Edwards's (no relation) behavior. Personally, from the pictures I have seen, I find Ms. Hunter to be more attractive than Elizabeth Edwards in her healthier years...but that is simply a matter of opinion that has no bearing on the issue at hand. As for her "worming" her way into the good graces of an accomplished man, getting pregnant and "prying" money from the man, that all sounds a bit harsh to me.
No one forced John Edwards to let this woman into his life, yet he willingly chose to do so; I don't see that as "worming" your way into anything. People will only be let into your life if you open the door, and obviously Sen. Edwards was more than willing to do so. As for her pregnancy, it would have never happened if Sen. Edwards had simply honored his wedding vows. Ms. Hunter did not force herself on Sen. Edwards, he willingly engaged in behavior that could result in pregnancy, so I fail to see how all of this falls on Ms. Hunter's shoulder. And as for the money, from all appearances the money seems to be more about Edwards trying to keep Ms. Hunter silent, than a ploy by Ms. Hunter to "pry" money from him. From an interview one of Ms. Hunter's friends gave on television the other day, it seems that Ms. Hunter is in love with Sen. Edwards, and Sen. Edwards expressed that same sentiment to her, and all she wants is to be with him. It doesn't seem that she went after his money, but after him...period.
And to answer your question, not all powerful men engage in this type of behavior. I would wager that most men, powerful or not, who have married a woman takes their vows seriously and vigilantly honor those vows. The problem is that when a high profile person, such as Sen. Edwards, who has what looks like an ideal marriage strays, it calls the fidelity of all men into question. But just because one high profile person acts like a cad does not mean "they all do it."
-- Eric Edwards
Walnut Cove, North Carolina
"Do they all do it? Let's start asking the reporters how much tomcatting around they do when they're on the road on assignment."
Oh, I think that's why the deafening silence to these exposed pols. Be it from the press or fellow pols, those in glass houses -- well, you know the rest.
-- J. T. Reedy
St Louie MO
AND WE NEED IT TO GO
Re: Quin Hillyer's We Need a "Big Mc" Tax Cut:
As is often the case with Quin Hillyer is spot on with his suggestions to the McCain camp. As has been proven by Presidents Reagan and Bush cutting taxes is good government policy. McCain should also pledge to make all military pay and benefits tax free. Why should those who serve the country in harms way be asked to sacrifice more than rich Democrats like George Soros, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Jim Webb, Jay Rockefeller, John Murtha and Barack Obama?
-- Michael Tomlinson
NO CRITIC LEFT BEHIND
Re: Rishawn Biddle's H-1B Education:
Apparently RiShawn Biddle needs to work on his fact checking, as do the brilliant educators who import those genius teachers from the Philippines. Those best and brightest Filipino bachelors degree holders spent no more time in school than an American high school graduate. Oops!
"The education system of the country embraces formal and non-formal education. Formal education is a sequential progression of academic schooling at three levels, namely, elementary, secondary and tertiary education. The first level, elementary or primary education involves compulsory six grades in public schools and seven grades in some private schools, in addition to optional pre-school programs (DECS, 1994). The pre-school education usually consists of kindergarten schooling and may cover other preparatory courses. At the age of 3 or 4, a pupil may enter nursery school until 5 and at 6 years old, proceeds to grade one.
"The second level or secondary education corresponds to four years of high school, the prerequisite of which is completion of the elementary level. A student enters the secondary level at age 12 and graduates at 15."
To top it off, there are 250 languages spoken in the Philippines, only 4 of which are written. These students are hindered in their early education with language difficulties that handicap them when comparing them to American educated students.
-- Rick Morrow
I found your recent article on H1-B to be misleading. For example:
-"These teachers, having grown up in a nation with strong ties to the United States, have strong English language skills and advanced degrees.
-"Many have spent more than a decade in classroom instruction, with classroom sizes of 40 or more students. Even better: They don't quit."
-"Just 11 of the Filipinos have left the district over the past four years."
This is pretty dishonest. The truth is that they can't quit. As a practical matter, people who are working under the H1-B visa program cannot change jobs.
The truth about H1-B is that the immigrants take the view that, if you come to America and either work for half price or take a job teaching somewhere that Americans refuse to work, then, after 6 years, you will get a Green Card.
While I have mixed feelings about such a program when it is used to supply teachers in inner-city schools, there can be little doubt that the use of H1-B by corporations like Microsoft is simply a subsidy.
The practical effect of H1-B on the American labor force, however, has been corrosive. Enrollment in U.S. Computer Science classes is one-half of what it was ten years ago. False claims of a shortage, followed by the importation of H1-B workers who drive down wages and eliminate job security for US workers, has had the (ironic) effect of causing a shortage.
Anyway, the question which has to be asked is this: Was this article written in ignorance, or are you deliberately engaged in propaganda?
-- Dave Chapman
RiShawn Biddle has done us a service by bringing an interesting trend in education to our attention. However, like most Americans who have never tried to make a living as an engineer or scientist, RiShawn refuses to accept that the H1-B visa program is more the cause than the solution to the shortage of technically literate Americans. Not only do young Americans (especially the minorities and women the establishment actually tries to encourage) shun professions which take considerable effort to enter and are flooded with practically unlimited cheap competition from all over the world. But also, our public schools are under very little real pressure to improve when our captains of industry and academia would rather import cheap, docile talent. And, of course, only paranoid xenophobes would worry about security problems when 40% of our physics students are from Communist China.
-- D.M. Duggan
Re: Jeffrey Lord's Democrats: the Missing Years:
Another item that I find interesting, this due to the liberal influence on education: when I was in school in the 1960s, all history books referred (correctly) to the party founded by Thomas Jefferson -- the party of Andrew Jackson and Jefferson Davis -- as the "Democratic-Republicans" -- that is the party that believed, at least nominally, in a democratic republic. This same party is now referred to in every book I read as the "Republicans" -- my daughter came home from school telling me about how "the Republicans" had been historically supporters of slavery and secession -- it took my a while to figure out why she was saying this, and then to explain the history of the GOP. Not only do liberals skip over their own history, but then they try to hang it on us!
-- Bill Shoemaker
CRINGE AND BEAR IT
Re: George H. Wittman's Showdown in Georgia:
The ultimate question, as George H. Wittman points out in his article "is whether the Russians will be satisfied with the return of South Ossetia and all of Abkhazia in northwest Georgia to Russian sovereignty." The answer is of course no. Putin is trying to restore the old Soviet Union, and by extension its military might and threat to all those areas no longer under the oppressive control of the former Soviet tyranny.
The timing is of course obvious. The world is focused on the Olympics, the Dems are focused on proper inflation of our tires and we're in a Presidential election cycle that gives the communist Putin the view that he can move as he wants without reprisals. Europe is impotent and the United States is tied up in a war in Iraq with a stretched military capacity. The United Nations is nothing more than a political debating squad with no troops, navy or air force to enforce any of its idiotic resolutions the convention of diplomats may come up with in the next few days.
Meanwhile, the Russians go back to being what the Russians have always been, paranoid imperialists seizing territories on pretexts. Russia hasn't changed in five hundred years! The Russians are heading back to the Cold War, and this time they have a resource to hold over the heads of the west! Perhaps now people will realize what the "environmental movement" was really about? And the people in the Baltics should once again be very aware of the pending military movements against them. The world will of course sit by as usual.
-- Valdis Gailitis
Newbury Park, California
I have read your article and you seem to get few facts completely wrong. Namely:
1) "Insiders in Moscow's think tank world spoke openly about the Kremlin's willingness to drop their objection to Georgia's joining NATO if they would accede to South Ossetia and Abkhazia rejoining Russia." You got this one 100% upside down. Nobody in Kremlin really cares about an extremely poor unpopulated hard-to-defend place called
South Ossetia, while everyone is genuinely scared of NATO. The reverse might have been true (although not necessarily): that Moscow might have helped Georgia to regain its provinces in exchange for military neutrality. Now, of course, this chance is lost. If your insiders indeed were spinning this fairy tale for you, you might want to look next time for more credible insider impersonators in Moscow.
2) "The Russians were ready with hundreds of tanks and armored vehicles." Does not seem credible to me. The Russian forces get into the battle about 48 hours after the initial assault after a long travel on winding mountain roads. If Russia indeed were planning an aggression, it would have pre-assembled forces on the southern side of the multi-mile Roksky tunnel thus excluding a chance of a small equipment mishap inside the tunnel bringing the supply operation to a complete halt. Do you have any source to your claim that Russian forces were waiting for an attack? Where?
3) "Heavy destruction in the Georgian city of Gori." I think that all reports from Gori (say, BBC) quote at most three bombs that went astray and hit the buildings surrounding the military base there (the correspondent even looked down at the base from the balcony of the bombed house).
4) "The ultimate question is whether the Russians will be satisfied with the return of South Ossetia and all of Abkhazia in northwest Georgia to Russian sovereignty." Answer is no: Russia had already lost perhaps more than 100 men in this fight and will go a lot further now to prevent Mr. Saakashvili from starting another war next summer. It would be wise for our government to use its power to hint to the Georgian president about benefits of early retirement and tenure in Columbia University. After all, his idea of taking on Russia with a 30-thousand-strong army disqualifies him as a commander-in-chief and would be laughable, if not for hundreds of people who already died and will die proving him wrong.
-- Dmitri "Dima" Varsanofiev
I'LL DRINK TO THAT
Re: Mike Roush's letter (under "Roush Delivery") in Reader Mail's Everywhere, Angst:
"I admit as a stockholder and a taxpayer, it can be difficult to calculate one's own best interests. Since I won no points with Mr. Sarver on the government efficiency front, can we, together, at least raise a glass to profits?"
Mike Roush is a capitalist? Our Mike? A grubby greedy, poor-of-the-world-oppressing stock holder of an evil American company? Concerned with the most evil institution in the known world, capitalism? Concerned with, I hesitate to even type the word for fear of indictment by the World Court, "profits?"
Who'ed thunk it!!!
Now I do need that glass! Leave the bottle.
-- Craig Sarver
Share this Article
Like this Article
Print this ArticlePrint Article