JOKERS TO THE LEFT
Re: R. Emmett Tyrrell's No More Jokes:
OK, RET, no more jokes on Mr. Spitzer. How about a tribute, instead?
You know, like, Time magazine's Man of the Year?
-- Mike Showalter
Really Mr. Tyrrell, in the '60s, Dems were far ahead of Republicans in advancing Civil Rights? Perhaps my memory will serve to remind you that Republican voted in higher percentages than Dems for the '64 Civil Rights Act. Southern Dems voted against it -- including Al Gore, Sr. Without Republican Party support it would have never passed.
I seem to recall an elected Republican president sent troops down south to protect Blacks from those Dem Southern Governors. And wasn't it the Democrat Party that led the South into Secession to protect slavery? Was not the once solidly Democrat South responsible for "Separate but Equal" nonsense? And isn't an alleged former KKKlansman still a senator from West Virginia?
My memory is a bit hazy in parts, but I can't recall instances of community- sanctioned lynchings in Republican-led states. When education was worth something, like (using todayspeak) up to the '60s, I learned the Republican party was the party of Abolition, that Republicans were instrumental in passing the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the U.S. Constitution, that Dem Southern Governors, Senators and congressmen blocked equal rights for its "Colored" citizens.
Yes, Dems have a long and glorious history of bigotry coupled with self-righteousness. There used to be a saying, "...scratch a Russian find a Tatar." I believe that underneath Dem politicians one will find, if not a prostitute, at the very least, a self-righteous bigot. And today's Black Democrat politicians? They aren't any different from wives of politicians standing by their disgraced husbands at press conferences. They've been abused for so long they've become inured to it. I believe they are actually grateful for any reflected crumbs falling their way.
-- Wolf Terner
Fair Lawn, New Jersey
I don't know why Geraldine Ferraro is surprised by the reaction she got to her comments. The Democrats have been practicing racial divide for years. It's now come back to haunt them.
-- Don Tilley
Identity politics, race and sex, somehow do not describe the battle going on in the Democrat party between Obama and Mrs. Clinton. The fight is really about Obamamania, a very successful marketing plan implemented by Obama to the displeasure of Mrs. Clinton. It is sort of like the Hula Hoop craze that hit this country in 1957-58. In a couple years 100 million were sold. Every one had one. But few realized that the hoop idea had actually been around for thousands of years entering and exiting societies around the world again and again. The new hoops were just made out of plastic.
In a sense, Obamamania is the hula hoop of American politics. He is not the first messianic politician with a slick marketing plan however. William Jennings Bryan at the turn of the last century, a Democrat Presidential candidate, comes to mind. A powerful speaker he electrified audiences just as Obama does, but lacked the voltage to become President.
So why all the talk of race and sex? It is because politicians are not going to admit that they are narcissistic, selfish and vainglorious. They prefer to sell the voters based on race and sex rather than admit their own vanity. Voters would be turned off hearing a pol say "I am the greatest" as opposed to "I am the first Black" or "I am the first woman." Voters are essentially dragged into discussion of race and sex by the pol.
Hula hoops usually got used by the young for a few days until they tired of them. They then lay in a corner of the house until their next attention. I suspect that is where Obamamania is headed.
-- Howard Lohmuller
I don't think that Eliot Spitzer is necessarily sexually obsessed. He appears to be infected with a compulsion to take big risks -- the same one that also infects Bill Clinton. This risk taking manifests itself in Spitzer and Clinton in the pursuit of tawdry sexual encounters. It must grow out of some need to destroy oneself. How sick.
-- Evelyn Leinbach
I think many are reading this Eliot Spitzer affair, no pun intended, wrong. You need to see this through the eyes of a Democrat. Through those eyes Eliot "Ness" Spitzer has acquired his last merit badge in becoming a future Democrat candidate for President of the United States. The last Democrat President had similar badges but this may even rise above that. To a Democrat or someone that "thinks" with their emotions, to be a great leader you must be a great Shakespearian flawed anti-hero to be worthy of the pinnacle of power that all such Democrats worship. Like a good Shakespeare anti-hero their greatest strength is their fatal weakness and ultimate down fall. Clinton got away with criminal activity that send ordinary people to jail and summed up his failures simply by saying, "I tried for 8 years and failed." He is an Icon in Democratism today because of his failures that are blamed on others. Failure is what Democrats do well and ultimately achieve. In my estimation Eliot "Ness" Spitzer is on his way to an even higher place in the religion of Democratism and eventual Presidential run. Bill Clinton didn't go to jail, why would Eliot "Ness" Spitzer? Listen to his concession speech. That's part of his closing argument to the jury pre packaged. He "tried and failed" so to speak. This Nation rewards failure everyday for people like this. Democrats will deny this but look at those held up as shining examples of Democratism over the last century. Misery loves company and Spitzer will be in fine company with the leadership of America's Failures are Us party.
-- Thom Bateman
Newport News, Virginia
RET writes: "They began to use race, and gender too for that matter, as the means by which they could get elected. In so doing, they came to need racially indignant constituencies, and now the Democrats are at each others' throats over race and gender. Welcome to the world of identity politics."
It gets even better (or worse, depending on your point of view). Republicans have been lectured to soften their border control stance, lest the Hispanic vote be lost. Now the secret is out. Republicans can lock the border, throw away the key, and still win the Hispanic vote -- as long as the Democrats nominate an African-American!
-- Dan Martin
Re: John Samples's Against a Common Purpose:
If, as John Samples has made the case, Iraq is "not a war for our national survival," then, by the same logic, neither is Afghanistan or by extension, any other war that takes place outside of America. Maybe he and other myopic Americans believe that -- but the terrorists sure don't. And neither does Iran.
Every war has its "fronts." Better Iraq and Afghanistan -- than Washington, D.C. and Lower Manhattan.
-- Arnold Ahlert
Boca Raton, Florida
TALK OF THE TOWN
Re: Quin Hillyer's The Veep Choice Must Be Test-Marketed:
I get the feeling that The American Spectator is trying to place John McCain's running mate; it's a headline on this site almost every day! Is there anything else that could be important enough to talk about?
I have read with interest Quin Hillyer's thoughtful series on prospective Vice Presidential nominees for Senator McCain. The criteria listed helped provide structure to the list of candidates, but I would respectfully suggest ought to have included two other thresholds.
The first I would add are that the nominee's home state would be an addition to the list of states that the ticket would reasonably hope to carry. That is, their inclusion on the ticket changes the dynamics of the race, or at the very least firms up a state that can be plausibly targeted.
The second is specific to this election: that the candidate can not have been part of the current administration. Regrettably the notion of guilt by association is as true in the political arena as in other walks of life. There is a careful balance necessary in utilizing President Bush's allegiance, which Senator McCain has managed masterfully to this point. To push that to include a current or former member of President Bush's team as the current Vice Presidential nominee would not represent a reasoned decision in what promises to be a tightly contested election. In fact, I believe it would be a reckless decision. Certainly it would provide rich and incessant talking points for the Democratic nominee.
With that in mind, Mr. Cox and Mr. Portman resumes bring negativity to the ticket no matter their fine individual strengths. Additionally, neither is a certain draw in their home state. It is worth recalling that Mr. Edwards did not carry his home state as part of the ticket in 2004, and for all the discussion about Florida in 2000, had Mr. Gore carried his home state of Tennessee, he would have become the President. For the top of the ticket not to carry his home state has catastrophic consequences; it is only slightly less so for the Vice Presidential candidate. And although it is not a criterion I am suggesting, are either Mr. Cox or Mr. Portman considered within the top tier of the party's bench strength for 2012 or 2016? Most importantly, does the general public view Mr. Cox or Mr. Portman as individuals that are presidential? Do Republicans?
Mr. Romney has received significant attention in the media when the topic of the Vice Presidential nominee is raised. Exit polling indicates that he did have difficulty resonating with the Republican rank and file, and was not the second choice of evangelicals (Senator McCain was more often than not their second choice). He does bring to the political stage stature and a resonating voice that would be a compelling balance to Senator McCain, particularly on matters of commerce and executive experience. In his only successful race for office -- for Massachusetts governor in 2002 -- he won in a state that is 3-1 Democratic in registration by a margin of 50% to 45%. If polling showed that he is likely to add Massachusetts to the McCain column this November, and without negatively impacting Senator McCain's appeal in the South, he would be a fine candidate. However, it is not at all certain he could help carry what is arguably the most liberal state in the country despite his past success in doing so. Perhaps between the two of them this traditionally Democratic state might swing to 'red' in this cycle. Had he chosen to run for reelection in 2006, this question would have been answered. However, his calculation was to seek the presidency, so there is no clear evidence on his sustaining appeal in the state.
If Mr. Romney's negatives were such to have us consider other candidates, then the matter of who the opponent to Senator McCain is would become a consideration. If Senator Clinton is the nominee for the Democrats, a balanced ticket with a southern governor might be the most strategic. If Senator Obama is the nominee, a woman on Senator McCain's ticket might help cement the dissatisfaction of Senator Clinton's base with the idea of a Senator Obama leading the ticket, and reinforce the idea that switching their support to Senator McCain is more reflective of their political interests.
-- Evan Harolds
I sure do get that we live in different times, but focus group McCain's Veep pick? Could you imagine what that would have done to Lincoln had he come along today? His homely looks, high, scratchy voice and gawky mannerisms would have consigned him to a lifetime of rail splitting.
Why don't we rely on John McCain's informed judgment in making this selection? If he can pick a man or woman of solid character, competence and demonstrated accomplishment, it may be a good indicator how he'll fare as president.
-- Jeff Schmidt
There is much to commend in Quin Hillyer's latest column, but I have a question. What practical difference to a President McCain would his Veep choice be, other than electorally? Quin, growing up and working in and around Washington D. C., I have seen some monumental egos, some truly historic arrogance. McCain ranks very near the top of both of those lists, in my opinion. The Veep will be, I believe, a figurehead. As Alban Barkley said, it won't be worth a bucket of warm spit. Why would any competent, self-respecting, successful politician take the job, unless to further their own fortunes four or eight years hence.
Sen. McCain is so obviously ego driven and arrogant, that a roll out, such as you quite rightly suggest, would seem phoney in the extreme. McCain is, I believe, incapable of touting any true conservative in a way that is believable, honesty-wise. I can not bring myself to believe that McCain will accept anyone other than a complete toady, a rump swab, as his Veep. That is why I can not see him picking Romney. We have seen how McCain acts when he dislikes anyone. Ask Rumsfeld. Ask Boeing. Ask Sen. Cornyn. He seems to have a tendency not to just dislike anyone, but to well and truly hate them.
Two jobs that I believe will be figureheads in a Pres. McCain administration will be Veep and Sec. Def. The Veep will NOT be a trusted, close advisor, as Cheney is to Bush, but an appendage, an after thought, as Alban Barkley or Harry Truman were to FDR. Course we all surely know that McCain will truly be his own Sec. Def., since he seems to think himself the second coming of Clauswitz or Sun Tzu.
I believe that Sen. Lieberman will be offered the job of Sec. of State. It remains to be seen whether Lieberman is fed up with the Senate and ready to join a McCain cabinet for a real and powerful job or not. I believe that Sen. Lindsey Graham will be offered Atty. Gen., and when it comes up, the first Supreme Court vacancy under a Pres. McCain, and he will accept either or both. The nation's Intel Czar, Homeland Security Sec., and CIA head will all be part time jobs because McCain seems to think that he knows all there is to know in these areas also.
But hey, what do I know.
-- Ken Shreve
Quin Hillyer replies:
I thank Mr. Shreve for his nice letter. I would say that it will make a tremendous practical difference who McCain chooses, for one main reason: because Republican voters seem determined to choose as their nominee the person who is "next in line." If McCain chooses a solid conservative such as Chris Cox or Paul Ryan, that will put Cox or Ryan "next in line" four or eight years hence, and thus restore a true Reaganite to the top of the ticket for the first time since 1984.
With regard to Mr. Harolds' thoughtful letter, I would say that he makes a lot of sense. But I would also say that somebody on the periphery of the Bush administration, as head of an independent agency -- such as Cox -- does not carry the same close association with the president as close aides do, and thus does not suffer the same political drawbacks. As for carrying a particular state, I do not think anybody can guarantee that, but I do think it helps if the Veep choice can help McCain be competitive somewhere where he otherwise would not be. Cox helps in both Minnesota and California, and Portman in Ohio. Whether they do enough to carry an extra state, nobody knows -- but just by being competitive, they force the opponents to waste time and resources defending the state.
Re: W. James Antle III's Third Wheels:
In "Third Wheels," W. James Antle III writes an incomplete and puzzling "analysis" of current American Third Parties in a bald attempt to discredit these options as not consonant with "political reality." The fact is, there are over thirty American Third Parties today each one of which is a legitimate outlet for those who choose to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed right of free association. Until such time as the representatives of the two-party cartel succeed in eliminating this right altogether. Sadly, I may live to see that day.
Mr. Antle presents a sneering piece that attempts to lambaste that large number of disaffected and recalcitrant ex-Republicans who won't vote for his man. Instead, he should consider that the development of the "two party system" is an historical anomaly, not a governmental structure ensconced in the U.S. Constitution. I chalk his diatribe up to the confusion all "conservative" Republicans must feel today when confronted with the "political reality" of rationalizing their likely votes for McCain, knowing full well that the guy doesn't represent their views in any meaningful way. Throughout my political experience, for over thirty years, I have been hectored by Republicans to vote for their slate of candidates as the "lesser of two evils." Yet, having done so, I find we are closer to the creation of an outright socialist state than ever before. I will not participate in this charade any longer. As for me, I will vote for that candidate that most closely reflects my views. And McCain ain't it.
-- Harry Hill
W. James Antle mentions Pat Buchanan, and in the process seems to implicate Ross Perot, of all people, in a conspiracy to keep Buchanan off the Reform Party ticket in 2000.
Mr. Antle might (or might not) be surprised at the following from Mr. Buchanan's latest column:
"Hillary won Ohio denouncing the NAFTA deal Bill Clinton cut. The lady gets it. McCain remains a loyal NAFTA man. Good luck in Ohio and Michigan."
Obviously this is an overt endorsement of Hillary. Given Mr. Antle's previous warm friendship with Mr. Buchanan, I wonder if Mr. Antle will follow suit. I can just see it: "The Conservative Case for Hillary Rodham Clinton," by W. James Antle III Esquire. Heck, Ann Coulter did it!
Thank God I'm no longer a conservative!
-- Daniel K. Weir
The piece on third parties was amusing.
The Constitution Party has been around a long time, and, so far as I know, that has always been its official name. It used to be called the "Greenback Party," but I believe that that was just a nickname. "U.S. Taxpayers Party" may have been the name of an affiliate in some east coast state or, more likely, was a separate group that merged with the Constitution Party somewhere along the way. The American Independent Party in California is actually the remnant of the party that qualified for ballot access in 1968 to support George C. Wallace. The Wallace party seems to have died out elsewhere, but, although it is hard to get on in the first place, once a third party qualifies for ballot access in California it can keep it as long as it likes. I think the Greenbackers may have co-opted the AIP because it already had a ballot line.
-- Dennis J. Mahoney
To answer the question, "Yes. Real conservatives will not vote for John McCain."
However, your article on third parties for 2008 as other options leaves a lot to be desired. As to the Constitution Party, the author reported the myth that many voters in California registered for the state branch, the American Independent Party, believing they were registering strictly as Independents. That is not the case. The voter registration documents say "American Independent Party."
Also, he writes about how a few members of the Constitution Party are "Christian Reconstructionists" who support stoning homosexuals and adulterers. That is like saying because Hillary Clinton is a Democrat all Democrats make questionable money from the futures market, hide White House documents, and send the I.R.S. after conservative groups. (Paragraph) To go into further information, the Natural Law Party remains on the ballot only in Michigan, while the Reform Party is on the ballot in five or six states waiting to see what San Nunn is going to do in 2008 as an independent. (Paragraph) There will be a candidate for Republicans to vote for on Election Day, only they just might have to go to the Constitution Party line on the ballot to vote for one. It is my hope that candidate will be Alan Keyes, a conservative Republican who is everything John McCain can only claim to be.
-- Michael Skaggs
W. James Antle III replies:
Mr. Mahoney is right about the American Independent Party's origins as the party that backed George Wallace in 1968. That party later fractured into two parties nationally and the only surviving AIP state party I am aware of is affiliated with the Constitution Party. During the 1992 and 1996 elections, the national Constitution Party was in fact called the U.S. Taxpayer's Party. The party adopted its current name in 1999.
As for Mr. Skaggs's contention that it is a "myth" that people have joined the Constitution Party thinking that they are registering as independents, I would point out that as of 2006, 315,151 of the party's 366,937 registered voters nationwide are American Independents living in California. If this isn't a case of mistaken identity, why don't the party's vote totals reflect this level of Golden State support? Only 75,350 Californians voted for the AIP candidate for senator that year, 61,901 for governor, and 11,694 for the House. The Constitution Party has never gotten 300,000 votes across the entire country.
While not all Constitution Party members are Christian Reconstructionists, they are hardly a fringe element in the party. The R.J. Rushdoony-influenced faction includes people as important to the Constitution Party as, yes, Hillary Clinton is to the Democrats. But at least the Constitutionalists will have a presidential standard-bearer fully their own. Even if Sam Nunn does run for president, the Reform Party will be a small backer rather than a main driver of his candidacy.
I've voted for plenty of third-party candidates over the years and expect to do so again very soon given the choices available. But I don't expect very many people, conservative or otherwise, to join me.
Re: John Berlau's The Empower Eliot Spitzer Bill:
Kudos to John Berlau for, among other things, bringing attention to the increasing regularity with which activist state attorneys general hire their personal injury lawyer friends and political supporters to sue "deep pocket" companies, supposedly in the public interest.
Recognizing that attorneys general may occasionally have legitimate reasons for hiring outside counsel to perform legal work on behalf of their respective states, the American Tort Reform Association last September proposed for adoption a "transparency code" to govern such contracts.
In essence the transparency code calls for all state contracts with outside counsel to be posted on the Internet for public inspection. Furthermore, unless an extraordinary situation requires assistance from a specific legal expert with technical or scientific experience not generally available, every effort should be made to conduct competitive bidding for such contracts.
Contingency fee contracts between attorneys general and outside counsel should be subject to review by state legislatures, and outside counsel should be required to disclose detailed information on the hours worked, services performed and fees received from the state, as long as this reporting does not undermine the attorney-client privilege.
Finally, all monies recovered by an attorney general in excess of $250,000 as a result of lawsuits won or settled by the state should be deposited in the state treasury for appropriation by the legislature unless a settlement with the attorney general's office stipulates that the funds shall be allocated to a specific entity. At no time should attorneys general enter into settlements that allow them to disseminate funds at their discretion.
-- Sherman "Tiger" Joyce
President, American Tort Reform Association
Mr. Berlau, in his excellent article on the Spitzer clones, refers to the top 10 worst AGs. It would be interesting to find out whether any other of these mini-Spitzers also imploded due to self inflicted wounds or immoral or illegal activities since this list was first published. Perhaps like Spitzer, these other 9 are nothing but a bunch of licentious, immoral boobs who have donned the cloth of justice, but are just poor petty scofflaws themselves. Like modern day Robespierre's, these AGs appear to have conducted a nationwide reign of terror, and like Robespierre, they may wind up facing the public executioner. Can you check on this? I would, but I'd probably become a target of their vengeance. And as we all know, we still have free speech in America, it's just that it can be pricey.
-- Chuck Oppitz
MARRIED BACHELOR PARTY
Re: Michael Roush's letter (under "Hot Under the Collar") in Reader Mail's Decadence and Decay:
In typical snarky fashion, Mike Roush writes in, "Looks like the Democrats are trying to even the score with the Republicans on sexual misconduct and corruption. How depressing."
Even the score et tu Brutus? Memory does not serve one well if thou thus think the score is under whelming on the Democrat side. FDR, JFK (fooling around with a mob boss' girl), LBJ's "secretaries," Wilbur Mills' late night public bathing showing his Fannie Fox, Teddy and his cadaver, "Happy Birthday, Mr. President" and brother Bob, etc. Heck, the list of peccadilloes (wanted and not) from one William Jefferson Davis Blythe Clinton alone would tilt the scales that would make UCLA's national basketball championships seem inconsequential by comparison.
Let's not even begin to recount the superior score of corruption on the Democrat side that is, as usual, overlooked or not prosecuted. Somehow I think Mr. Spitzer will be in the latter category even though by all standards he could get 10-20 years in a federal prison for crimes he himself prosecuted.
At least Mr. Roush kindly mentioned the party of one said john, aka Eliot Mess, unlike his buddies in the mainstream media that can't even bother to type the hellish word "Democrat" less they open the door to Hades itself. This of course in contrast to any article on Republican, Larry, Republican, Craig, Republican from, Republican, Idaho found tapping his Republican toe in a Republican leaning airport bathroom in a city ran by a Republican Mayor with a Republican Governor and full of Republican voters (after a poll by NBC/USA Today) of Republican travelers.
Of course we should be grateful for this new phenomenon of liberals with blinders on for decades finally waking up. I await Mr. Roush's future complaint of the horrible methods used by the Clinton's against Obama in a political campaign. I'm sure the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy is somehow to blame although. Just ask Geraldine Ferraro.
No, Mr. Roush, it's not even close. Finally a Democrat goes down for their biggest crimes: Arrogance, Hubris and Sanctimony. Take a shower.
-- Greg Barnard
ABOUT THAT RACISM...
Re: Daniel Allott's Safe, Legal, and Dishonest:
Mr. Allott asks a reasonable question. If the prolife individuals really believe abortion is murder, then why do these same people not demand criminal penalties for the women undergoing the procedure? Indeed, he ended his letter stating that unless the prolife movement demands penalties for both the women as well as the practitioners of death, they are simply "frauds."
I am as close to being an abolitionist of abortion as one can get. Yet I am willing to accept a compromise. As inconstant as it is, the fact is the general public insists that abortion should be permitted in cases of rape, incest, and life-threatening illness. As some would have it, I should reject any compromise with these exclusions and insist on no abortions at all.
Such a bill would be politically impossible to pass. In a matter of cold calculation, I will accept a bill which limits exceptions to rape, incest and cataclysmic circumstances. Having secured most abortions, then I can press the public to see that life must be protected consistently. As a matter tactics, as the saying goes, "do not let the best defend the better only to wind up with the worst."
Equally, the public has no stomach for prosecuting women in this matter. As least on the surface, penalties for women who abort their babies make sense. Whether one is for punishment or not, the fact is it's not going to happen. The American public will not send their wives, girlfriends or daughters to the "Big House." They won't stand for it. Penalties for abortionists are a different story. Most surveys indicate there is little sympathy for those who kill the unborn. Even when abortion is legal, abortionists command little respect. They may be taking care of society's "dirty laundry," but abortionists need not show their faces.
Let us note in passing there are no similar demands placed on "pro-choicers" to be consistent and logically pure. (If you are so "pro-choice" then why do you not in turn oppose laws to restrict smoking in bars and the open air outside?) "Prochoicers" are simply given a pass.
Ever since the Supreme Count ruling which effectively extended abortion for any reason and the Prolife movement began to form, many set up lists of "qualifications" any Prolifer must meet in order to be truly sincere -- anything less than "purity" renders that Prolifer unqualified to be taken seriously. They are hypocrites and as all hypocrites do they say one thing and do the. Thus the old "testimony" that Prolifers protest at the front door of the abortion clinic while sneaking their own daughters through the back door to take care of those pesky pregnancies.
Be that as it may, I would suggest that racism is a huge component in the prochoice community. They are families who would go into catatonic shock if one of their daughters obtained an abortion but think it is perfectly fine for "those people." Yes, the fact that such a huge number of Afro-American babies do not "make it" to birth is seen as a social positive. I suggest that this crude calculation in notions of eugenics is evil in and of itself. When are pro-choicers going to confront the racists in their midst?
-- Mike Dooley
MAX SAID NO
Re: Diane Smith's letters (under "Emperor Concerto" and "Big Mama State") in Reader Mail's Decadence and Decay:
Might I mention a minor quibble with the note from Diane Smith regarding Eliot Spitzer and his "Stand by your man" wife. Diane opines that it started with a certain Senator, Gary Hartepence. Might I suggest that Wilber Mills had his wife by his side when he apologized for getting caught in the Capitol reflecting pool with a certain Miss Fannie Foxx. That predates Gary Hartpence by a considerable period.
Now it might be a bit more debatable whether the studied ignorance and/or indifference of Eleanor Roosevelt and Mamie Eisenhower qualify in this context. Course I have always said that, if I was married to Eleanor Roosevelt, I, too, would have had a mistress. The same might apply in the case of the Clintons, but I am not sure which to feel sorry for, him or her.
-- Ken Shreve
With regard to Diane Smith's use of Where the Wild Things Are to conclude her excellent letter, I wonder if she would accept the following:
State of California to homeschoolers: "Oh please don't go! We'll eat you up, we love you so! But (Max) said NO!"
-- James Noble
Share this Article
Like this Article
Print this ArticlePrint Article