Re: R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.'s Captain McCain:
Out of this list of yours:
"... Democrats' promised panaceas: higher taxes, more government regulators, more bureaucrats, and a lunge at the country's health providers with the intent of transforming them into the efficiency experts at the U.S. Postal Service. Moreover, there are federal judicial appointments to make, a war on terror to fight, and extravagant government spending to be scotched."
...the only item on it we can count on McCain to differ from Democrats is the war on terror.
-- Paul Doolittle
Excellent article -- I have only one quarrel with Mr. Tyrrell's merciless description of Obama's thin resume. I don't think "wet behind the ears" aptly describes young Barry. He has no behind the ears. He has an "in front of the ears" and an "in back of the ears," but no "behind the ears." I am an expert on ears that lie nestled snugly against the head, having washed behind two generations of little boys' ears. As Obama's ears seem grafted on like handles on a teapot -- that is to say, straight out, there could be no wet behind, as any damp area would dry immediately.
As an ear watcher and ear washer, may I say R. Emmett Tyrrell has attractive ears? I just did.
-- Diane Smith
There is at least one issue that the pundits, talkers, and writers on "our" side of the left to right political spectrum have so far refused to address. I have asked this question numerous times, in numerous places, but no one will give a straight answer. They dance and spin until it make my ignorant head spin.
That question is, why do conservatives and those with libertarian leanings steadfastly refuse to call a spade a spade when it comes to Obama and his ilk. Obama is NOT a leftist. Obama is a Socialist, one that borders on being a Marxist. Further, he is a one world Socialist, if there is any other kind. He is a George Soros, one world, Socialist, not a leftist. He should be referred to as the Socialist candidate for President. He should this way each and every time he is mentioned in writing or oral communication.
Jimmy Carter was, during his Presidency, a leftist, albeit an incompetent one. He was not, at the time, a Socialist. Jimmy Carter was in the top 5 worst American Presidents of all time, but he was an American at bottom.
I am totally unable to confidently say that Obama and his wife, Michele, are dedicated Americans in the very marrow of their bones. They do not show me that they put the interests of America first in their prescriptions for governing issues. Where is there evidence that Obama would put the interests of the United States above the interests of the United Nations, the European Union, or any other world governing body. Where is the evidence that he would not honor the one world prescriptions of George Soros, Rebecca Peters, the United Nations, etc.
Finally, I would like to know why Emmett Tyrrell Jr., Quin Hillyer, or any of the other writers at The American Spectator refuse to consistently use the term Socialist for Obama, instead of the weak and fundamentally questionable term "Leftist?" Are you afraid that you will offend the Democrats and their fellow travelers in the media and academia? Are you afraid that you will miss out on invitations to Washington D. C. area cocktail parties and dinners? Are you afraid that some of your so called "friends" will cut you off? The mainstream American electorate will not elect a Socialist. They will elect a Leftist that will take care of them, like a parent would. Sure the MSM will have a conniption fit, but so what? They already despise you. They already think that you are too stupid, or too venal, to be allowed outside to play with the other kids.
I could say the same things about Conservative talkers, like Hannity, or Ingraham, or Rush, etc. But the bottom line is that somebody, or some publication has to have the cajones to be the leaders, to start the movement to plain language and truth telling. Do the writers at the American Spectator have the necessary courage, or are you simple sheep that insist of letting the political define the terms to be used in the rough and tumble of politics, to define the rules to be followed in the media game? I would like a straight answer as to why you folks continue to be AWOL in this fight to save the very essence of our once great country? Conservatives and our warriors (mostly the same folks) deserve better from you.
-- Ken Shreve
R. Emmett Tyrrell's exposition on possible presidency by our Abu Hussein -- namely bad economy, bad social legislation, far-left courts, Carter II foreign policy -- falls short of the full impact of such a presidency on this country. Mr. Tyrrell's brief description of Obama's work experience as "community organizer" is not fully described; in fact it is a career of a revolutionary welfare pimp in charge of illegal and violent manifestations intimidating the elected officials of Chicago. Then Obama became a lawyer for succeeding welfare pimps, and finally law instructor for future lawyers for welfare pimps. His close friendship with admitted and unrepentant domestic terrorists such as Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, with Marxist revolutionary groups such as ACORN, and with racist revolutionaries such as various "reverends" should be illustrated with vivid examples of their rhetoric. Obama's probable appeasement of Muslim jihadists should be illustrated through Obama's own words. Now that would present a more realistic picture of the abyss facing this country in November.
-- Marc Jeric
Las Vegas, Nevada
Bob Tyrrell's lecture on the overarching virtues of candidate McCain was the single best written argument I've read with respect to voting for this guy. I am biased, I suppose. Tyrell is one of those Conservative "warriors" I keep trying to locate. And at least a minor treasure. He actually brings passion and logic to his convictions. I've met the senator... I disliked him almost immediately, sometimes after listening further to the fellow I wonder why I didn't dislike him sooner. He strikes me as self-important, self-regarding, and self-inflating. I believe him to be bitter and wrong far too often on Conservative issues, e.g. immigration, First Amendment. Well, you know the drill. On the other hand, Tyrell's apologia DOES make a case for double-clutching on an absolute refusal to vote for McCain. McCain is a serious man. Senator Obama is as well, but in the style of a preening, supercilious feline. He would, in concert with a Reid Senate and Pelosi House proceed to break this country. If nothing else, Bob Tyrrell has given me cause to pause. This election will count for something.
-- J.C. Eaton
You have managed to spin quite a few of McCain's shortcomings (and believe me, they are shortcomings!), but you fail to address the Gang of 14; the holds he placed on conservative judicial nominees; the in-your-face votes against President Bush; his amnesty for illegals; his stupid adherence to Global Warming Baloney; his votes against tax cuts, his obstinate refusal to consider drilling in the ANWR and I could go on and on.
When he voted against the tax cuts he said it was because they were "tax cuts for the rich." At that time there was no mention of off-setting cuts in spending. For seven years he did everything in his power to embarrass the President. How many times did we see him on TV reviling Republicans and -- especially conservatives?
I grant you John McCain is better than the alternative, but I want someone to vote FOR. I don't wish to vote for the lesser of two evils or because it someone's turn to be the Republican nominee. Senator McCain is the choice of Eastern Liberal Republicans and the RNC. I used to be a Republican, but no longer. I now refer to myself as a Conservative Independent and the RNC has finally stopped asking me for money. I now contribute to the candidates of my choice.
-- Judy Beumler
Only one other election in the past century produced two major party candidates whom were so far apart in governing philosophy. They were Ronald Reagan the Conservative and Jimmy Carter the Liberal in 1980. The difference between McCain and Obama seems as wide mainly because Obama is to the left of even Jimmy Carter. Obama's political life has followed in the path of a card carrying Communist. McCain has been a Conservative his entire political life with some compromises to Liberalism he thought necessary for good governance and that have irked other Conservatives.
McCain appears to be in the right place at the right time. All Conservatives and Liberals whom wish to protect their rights, their families, their property and America's continued effort to build a better and greater country should vote for McCain. The past failures of Liberalism, Socialism and Communism here and throughout the world, to protect the governed, are unmistakable.
-- Howard Lohmuller
Re: Jeffrey Lord's Reparations for Al Qaeda:
Two very interesting articles in yesterday's TAS. Mr. Lord's "Reparations for Al Qaeda" was a brilliant comparison of the shoot straight, ride hard and speak the truth mentality of the average citizen of this country during WWII and the don't hit me, air conditioning loving, Mr. Rogers outlook of the TWOT. And Mr. Tyrrell's "Captain McCain" would make a wonderful biographical campaign flier.
A comment on the Reparations piece. The Liberal fifth column intelligentsia is still alive and well in this country. These are the same people, and their descendants, who embraced international communism, disregarding the fact that the intelligentsia were the first ones on the trains to the gulags, re-education centers and mass graves. They are at best idiots and at worst traitors. They actively work against the interests of this country and its citizens, but are the first to cry for its protection when faced with the barbarians inhabiting most of the rest of the planet. And they will spend any amount of other people's money to buy the "good will" of those same barbarians. That an Uber Liberal such as Senator Obama would side with them should come as no surprise to anyone.
As to Senator McCain, he is not a conservative. He has actively taken positions opposed to those usually considered to be conservative. He votes more often with liberal Democrats than Republicans. He is opposed to core conservative positions on taxation, immigration, global warming and government regulation. As to his military service, Gen. Wesley Clark has a much better resume and I don't see him being asked to run on the Republican ticket. I understand that you feel, and rightly so, that John McCain can not win election without a significant conservative turn out in his favor, but please do not try to sell him like a used car with the American flag and the Colonel Bogie March in the background. It is not dignified. Be honest. A vote for anyone other than McCain is a vote for Obama. Enough said. And if you say that long enough, you just might get a significant number of Conservatives to throw the lever for McCain.
Both good pieces, but for strikingly different reasons.
-- Michael Tobias
What is difficult for the Left, including Obama, Mayer and Rutten, in regards to understanding detention policies and prisoners of war? Simply stated, the detainees from America's current military action in foreign lands are to be treated as POWs since they are members of a military force, an irregular militia, acting against the interests and military of a sovereign government, ours. In a word, they are terrorists.
The recent SCOTUS pronouncement, granting the right of habeas corpus review to non-US combatants severely hamstrings American military operations. Men and equipment must be sacrificed to "detain" the enemy fighters even during battles. Under Boumediene v. Bush, these POWs are to be diverted off the battle fields to the nearest civilian court in a most timely manner.
The Constitution does guarantee a "fair and speedy" trial for American citizens; the Boumediene illogically extends the umbrella of that protection not only to non-citizens but to the very people who wish to destroy America and all for which she stands. POWs under American supervision were not without protection or enforceable rights before Boumediene. They were protected, and continue to be protected, under the articles of Geneva conventions, which all American military personnel are required to learn at boot camp. The U.S. military personnel know how to treat their POWs. Sadly, this cannot be said for many of our enemies, past or present.
-- Ira M. Kessel
Rochester, New York
"Are mistakes made in war? Obviously, yes. No one would ever be foolish enough to deny it -- whether in this war or any other."
Not trying to be contrary, but when I read "no one would ever be foolish enough," honestly, I immediately thought of Barack Obama.
On second thought, he might, though, if he had a hand in starting or prosecuting that war. He'd just find someone else to blame for the mistakes.
-- C. Kenna Amos
Princeton, West Virginia
BAD TO THE FUTURE
Re: Larry Thornberry Ich Bin Ein Pretender:
Obama, who favors partial birth abortion, favors withholding medical assistance to aborted babies born alive and doesn't want his daughters "punished with a baby" should they make a mistake, boldly states,
"...Now is the time to reclaim our children's future...."
Is Barack suddenly opposed to Roe v. Wade?
-- Wolf Terner
Fair Lawn, New Jersey
I haven't yet met a military family that could do much more than control the foaming around the mouth at the thought of The Big O becoming President. Military families, especially those of us with long history of service, are intensely loyal to whoever the Commander-in-Chief is. It is part of the code of honor. In our family when Clinton was President our son was at the AF Academy. We never, and I mean never, said one thing about the man, lest our son hear a disparaging remark regarding the man who was his Commander-in-Chief.
I will say that Obama is so dangerous that most military families shudder and have hair on the backs of necks stand up at the mere thought of the possibility of his Presidency. With a son serving in a time of war I am very sensitive to the remarks that our elected leaders have made that have indeed caused the deaths of precious men and women who were doing their duty. Our actions have consequences. When Pelosi made her foreign trip and basked in the limelight with our enemies, a young man with connections to our family was killed that very weekend by emboldened insurgents, hoping to score their will by tallying up more deaths. These leaders have directly caused deaths.
Before Obama left he shot his mouth off about Afghanistan and a Special Forces outpost was most nearly overrun and some nine brave Americans gave their lives. The arrogance of the man supersedes Bill Clinton's. In fact, in my lifetime I have never known of anyone this arrogant and self possessed.
My fear is that the computerized election machines have been keyed to let Obama win. Computers have been developed by folks who tend to vote leftist. And since voting is no longer a sacred duty and votes have been sold to illegals and criminals, is it no wonder we military families quake in our shoes.
We pray that after the election America will still be the land of the free and the home of the brave, for that along with truth and justice are what my son and many others fight for.
Just the thoughts of an East Texas Rancher
-- Bev Gunn
"Perhaps it's time we traded Obama to the EU for two croissants and a used Volvo. (It would be one of those trades that benefit both teams. Europe would get a guy they adore, and we would get something of value.)"
Now that's funny. Thanks.
Just wondering, though: Who'll get the croissants and Volvo? I'd like first dibs on the auto, please.
BTW: What'll happen to Obama devotees here, including the MSM? Wonder if they'll follow him to Europe?
-- C. Kenna Amos
Princeton, West Virginia
Did anyone notice that "Obama" and "Berlin" are spelled identically, but with different letters? (Humor must abide somewhere in this dreariest of campaigns.)
-- David Govett
ONE MORE FOR THE ROAD
Re: Christopher Orlet's Seven-Drink Minimum:
I enjoyed this article quite a bit.
For some beautiful lyrics on the ghosts of Hank Williams, who died in my hometown of Knoxville, see David Allan Coe's "The Ghost of Hank Williams:"
Classic (i.e. old) country music is my favorite genre.
Willie Nelson calls the new crop of pop country singers "the hard-bellied crowd."
The Nashville music scene wanted no part of many of the singers to whom I most frequently listen (e.g. Waylon Jennings and Merle Haggard), which is why Austin, Texas and Bakersfield, California became the sound centers of the "outlaw country" sub-genre.
There is still some good country music being recorded now, but a good bit of what passes for country these days would be more aptly called country pop.
-- Christopher A. Hall
Perhaps Mr. Orlet was still a little thrashed from his evening at the Bluebird when he wrote this piece. But apropos of what? Tell him he should not use "apropos" when he means "appropriate."
-- Diane Smith
DON'T DODGE THE FACTS
Re: Eric Peters's Chrysler Corpse:
The author should at least get all of his facts straight before launching into this kind of lambaste. He mentions that Chrysler does not have a crossover vehicle to match the likes of Ford Edge or Buick Enclave. Did he forget to notice that Dodge launched the crossover Journey a few months ago, and that James Healy of USA Today gave it a very favorable review two weeks ago?
-- Steve Weeks
Westlake Village, California
SOUL ON ICE
Re: C. Kenna Amos's letter (under "Praise and Even Worship") in Reader Mail's The Good News According to Barack:
I can't remember ever reading a more pompous, arrogant and self-righteous letter than the one written by C. Kenna Amos.
-- Mike Roush
Re: Emma Elliot's Barack in Berlin:
Why has even the conservative media not mentioned that the reason this crowd showed up was due to free beer, bratwursts and a rock concert?
-- M.L. Wright
Share this Article
Like this Article
Print this ArticlePrint Article