Re: Peter Ferrara's Is This What Our Economy Needs?:
The answer to the question posed by Peter Ferrara in the title to his article, "Is This What Our Economy Needs?" is a resounding NO! The HilBama economic programs are little more than the warmed-over, moldy old policies of the New Deal.
For anyone interested to find out what really happened, I highly recommend FDR's Folly: How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression by Jim Powell. The subtitle says it all.
-- Gretchen L. Chellson
Mr. Ferrara correctly predicts major problems for the economy should either of the putative Democrat candidates be elected this November. But, seriously, am I expected to therefore conclude that the solution is to elect a Republican candidate who advocates much of the same things? When McCain admits his ignorance of basic economics, as he has done, and asserts that he needs to study the subject in preparation for his ascendancy to the most powerful office on earth, this speaks volumes about what the future holds for this country. At age 72, one would assume that this man has already become familiar with economic theory and has positions that he has acquired and holds based on his life-long research. It is beyond pathetic that a candidate has to "crib" for the American presidency.
The record shows that McCain is driven by the same Marxist economic foundation and its modern "green" derivative that drives the Democrats. Any votes he might have made otherwise during his terms as Senator were mere political calculations, not matters of principle. Even now, his claims concerning extending the Bush tax cuts and reversing himself on illegal immigration is not to be believed. McCain is a bald-faced liar. How on earth can anyone claim to know that this guy would do anything other than what he has already done, which is do everything in his power to destroy governmental adherence to the U.S. Constitution and create an American socialist state. I will never vote for McCain. Regardless of who wins this November, this nation will be shaken to its core in a way not experienced since the War Between the States.
-- Harry Hill
Mr. Ferrara certainly has done the diligence on the economic disaster that will be the Obama or the Clinton administration. It is terrifying to contemplate what either of these two socialists will do to the country which is already struggling from overregulation and over taxation, however, there are many Americans who have not tumbled to the fact that these twin torpedoes are the agents that are sinking our ship.
For those who have not yet seen the light that Mr. Ferrara shines on the subject, I would suggest that they take a look at the economic history of the state of Michigan. No need to go back too far because it was not too far in the past that Michigan was one of the most economically prosperous states in the union. All one need do is look back just fifty years to see what has happened to this once prosperous place. Certainly the several oil crises of the last forty years have had much to do with the tragedy that Michigan's economy has become, but high priced oil is only one ingredient in the poisonous stew that is the economy of Michigan. Other factors such as vain attempts to drill in ANWR and off shore for oil, the blockade manned by the green morons against construction of new refineries, rapacious union demands and work rules, ever increasing taxation of manufacturing facilities by the tax and spend liberals now running the state, rampant crime in cities going unchecked until the normal citizens escape to the suburbs, and certainly some corporate greed by some of the big shots in the auto industry have combined to turn Michigan into a gigantic off ramp onto which businesses and individual families alike are jumping in droves.
This is what socialism does to prosperity. It is not a pretty picture, and it is a picture that is the same wherever it is tried. This is what our country will look like after the next Democratic administration and congress get through with it. Perhaps electing Clinton or Obama to the presidency is, in reality, a good thing. I guess it depends upon whether or not one believes that a society can come back from the economic winter that is socialism. I fervently hope that this next Democratic shock wave will awaken enough centrists to save the country, and on my good days, I believe that it will be so. However, God help me on my bad days!
-- Joseph Baum
Mr. Ferrara needs to wake up and smell the coffee. A substantial number of Americans are more than ready to embrace Nanny State government. They believe the country "owes" them something-for-nothing, even if that "something" is the largesse confiscated from their fellow Americans.
Have these unabashed Takers become a majority? We'll see in November.
-- Arnold Ahlert
Boca Raton, Florida
SHOW ME THE NUMBERS
Re: Nicole Russell's Purpose Driven Progressive:
Interesting thesis. To make it fly, you'd need data showing Huckabee voters casting their ballots because of the "progressive" elements of his politics.
Maybe it's there, but the Huckabee voices I heard were talking about the issues where Huckabee was inside the "conservative evangelical" mainstream -- or they weren't talking issues at all, they were identifying with a fellow evangelical, especially against the likes of McCain, whose past actions and rhetoric suggested he had no use for them.
-- Brad Bettin
Has Nicole Russell read the Bible's hundreds of passages about poverty and hunger? I don't think it's the government's job to alleviate these problems, but I sincerely question the familiarity of the author with her topic. Saying issues of poverty, peace and the environment aren't Biblical issues does a disservice to the scope of the Bible, methinks.
And contrary to what Ms. Russell and hundreds of others have written, Huckabee's so-called "nanny-state" tendencies have been grossly exaggerated. Yes, they are there in all their unfortunate glory at times, but his problems in this regard are certainly no worse than those of our current president.
I can't help but think many conservatives' near-allergic reaction to Huckabee is something of a projection of our dislikes of the shortcomings of our current president. How else can we explain why two pro-choice, anti-gun, effectively pro-civil union politicians were hailed as true conservatives by the likes of TAS, NR, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity while a pro-life, pro-gun, anti-gay marriage guy running to abolish the IRS (however unseriously) was heralded by some as a pro-life liberal? Are Republicans really so determined to define a third of their base out of the coalition?
-- Brian C. Mueller
Mike Huckabee, Bill Clinton's favorite Republican, masqueraded as a conservative and lied about his record. That he was able to fool people should not be surprising in a year when style over substance is the name of the game as illustrated by the meteoric rise of the "Obamanation" and his cult. Huckabee was our Obama, but fortunately the majority of Republican voters (including conservative evangelical Christians like myself) were not fooled by a 21st century Huey Long.
Huckabee is an egocentric, unethical and dishonest politician from the old school of Southern Democrat politics. Those fooled by this charlatan need to wake up -- true to his liberal roots he is an old time tax and spend politician, with a foreign policy agenda straight out of the McGovern playbook, who believes the Constitution is a "living doctrine" (the bedrock of pro-abortion fanatics) and sodomy is a Constitutional right. How long do his devotees really believe he'd stay pro-life and for the marriage amendment once he was seduced by the DC "harlot of Babylon?" As far as ethics he has none. Like Bill and Hillary Clinton politics for the Huckabee's is all about personal gain at other's expense. It's too bad his shaking down lobbyists and stealing furniture from the Arkansas Governor's mansion among his many "crimes" didn't win him a cell in prison.
I wonder if Chuck Norris hadn't been so gullible how long the Huckster's vaudevillian campaign would have lasted? Mike Huckabee needs to do the ethical thing and embrace his real political home -- the Democrat party. He's dishonest and shady enough to fit in just fine and like wimpy Harry Reid he's supposedly pro-life.
-- Michael Tomlinson
Re: Shawn Macomber's Fighting Words:
The article was very good. Your writers do a wonderful job, and I just wanted to express that thought.
-- Brett Butler
Isn't there some way that we can abrogate the Constitution and draft Pres. Klaus for the upcoming POTUS elections? I have to say that he seems to have humongously more potential then ANY of the candidates planning to run by any of our parties, including the minor ones. Yes, I am including McCain in that list of lesser lights.
-- Ken Shreve
Vaclav Klaus is Ronald Reagan's legacy! Prayerfully, George W. Bush's legacy will be an Arab and Muslim who 20 years from now sounds like the brave Czech. Of course, Hillary "Obama," Barack "Clinton" and terrorist loving liberal fascist Democrats will do their best to insure that never happens. They prefer Jimmy Carter's Iran and Bill Clinton's letting Osama bin Laden running free to democracy and freedom.
-- Michael Tomlinson
Between Vaclav Klaus in the Czech Republic and Alvaro Uribe in Colombia, there's still some hope in the world.
-- Mike Showalter
Re: Jay D. Homnick's I Hold Hillary Responsible:
About Jay Homnick's flawed offering:
Jay Homnick's rude dismissal of Madam Clinton's claims to experience in military crisis is wrong. Has he forgotten that she was co-president, and therefore we must assume, party to every national security decision rendered during the reign of The Honorable Bill?
She was there when Bill refused to deploy anything other than small arms in Somalia, where American forces were guarding a humanitarian effort. The consequences of that decision, the defeat and humiliation of crack American troops by a better-armed swarm of brutes, echoed around the globe. They caused every third world windbag with an attitude and a funny hat to probe the edges of American power, and exploit every trace of weakness. They condemned an untold number of innocent black Africans to starvation. Americans died because the Clintons did not want to get their hands dirty.
Hillary was party to the initial articulation of the Clinton Doctrine, drafted during the zaniest days of pandemonium in Haiti. Written in plain language, this document declares that when a crisis besets any nation close to home, or far away, America will-dispatch-troops-or-maybe-not-dispatch-troops-because-someone-might-get-shot-so-maybe-dispatch-troops-without-bullets-what-do-the-polls-say-does-anyone-know-Jimmy-Carter's-phone-number.
Hillary was a prime mover of a policy that allowed the Clinton Administration to let Sadam Hussein thumb his nose at the United Nations for eight years, and subsidize every terrorist in the Middle East. She helped frustrate an attempt to turn Osama bin Laden over to the United States. She wrestled with the decision to bomb a factory that made baby aspirin when a grand jury was about to work serious damage upon her chances at the White House. Then she helped launch the only wholly righteous war ever undertaken by the United States.
The U.S. effort in Bosnia was blameless because Slobodan Milosevic was a white, middle-aged, heterosexual, able-bodied male, and we kicked his racist, sexist ass, sisters! The mission ate up lots of very expensive cruise missiles, and had no apparent goals, but Hillary did not falter. She knows how to fight politically correct war. Behold her at the edge of the firelight. She quivers in mad anticipation; she howls, she foams; she puts her ear to the ground.
She is without doubt a warrior. But one wonders if her refusal to allow military uniforms to be worn within the confines of the Executive Mansion during the nineties will be carried over into this next presidency. After the events of 2001, a lot of people turned pro-military. She might have to adjust. Rumors say she'll wear a Commander-in-Chiefette uniform of her own design. I can't wait.
-- Edmund Dantes
How I wish I had a journalist's credentials so I could ask Hillary, our First First Responder, one or two simple questions.
"Imagine it's now Day One of your erstwhile presidency, and Hugo the Red has just launched land, sea, and air attacks on targets in Colombia. What will you do?"
Tough question, I know. If that's a bit too much to ask, then how about this one -- somewhat easier, but perhaps better: "It's now Day One of your erstwhile presidency, and you find exactly the same set of circumstances that are there right now. What actions will you take?"
If we could ever pin Mother Superior down on those questions, we might spare ourselves a litany of her self-serving second-guessing of what G.W.B. will have had to do in reality.
By the way, I notice that none of the other circling vultures have opened their mouths with any suggestions, either.
Why am I not surprised?
-- A. C. Santore
Hillary and "Maggie Williams (Aunt Tomasina to the Obama people), ran a series of television ads showing the phone ringing in the White House at 3 a.m. and asking viewers who they would rather see picking up that phone."
Being married to a President for eight years is sufficient qualification? Then I'd rather have Nancy Reagan and her astrologist charting our course.
-- Dan Martin
STAYING THE SURGE
Re: G. Tracy Mehan, III's General Odierno Returns Home:
In the history of warfare there is derived an axiom. It is an algorithym for success. You destroy the enemy's ability to wage war.
We did this in the Revolution by using the vastness of the land to draw the British further and further from supplies, and engaging France to use up more and more British troops in other places.
Sherman understood this perfectly in his march to the sea. World War II saw this done with bombers in Europe and submarines in the Pacific. Soldiers killed and were killed but the inability of the enemy to deliver supplies in quantity was disrupted. (The bombing of German factories actually caused minimal disruption, it was the bombing of rail facilities that did that.)
In wars we failed to follow that simple rule, Korea and Vietnam, we failed. We failed be cause we used foolish strategy in Korea and no strategy in Vietnam. In those wars we sacrificed our sons in battles not seeking victory, but rather seeking not to lose.
This appears to be the developed Democrat strategy for warfare. George Bush has embraced it fully. We came with hugely insufficient troops. It is a measure of how much we are not a superpower that we have been unable to field enough troops to bring victory in Iraq.
Our military was decimated by Bush the First and reduced to impotence by Field Marshall Clinton. Ronald Reagan left America the strongest military in the world, we have allowed it to wither nearly unto death.
I do not believe we can win in Iraq without more troops and much more violence done by us.
-- Jay Molyneaux
Denver, North Carolina
Re: Michael Roush's letter in Reader Mail's Mood Swingin':
When readers such as Mike Roush praise Sen. McCain, the Republican Party needs to pause and examine the damage it has inflicted upon itself. "Independents" such as Mr. Roush, who openly distain the conservative base, nonetheless have given the RNC and McCain a false sense of hope. Unfortunately, we've been down this road before, and the support coming from Mr. Roush and his ilk, along with McCain's erstwhile friends in the MSM, will dissipate in November like the morning dew on a hot August day.
I've never quite understood the fascination "Independents" have with McCain. Surely, McCain's investigation of the Boeing Tanker deal (Roush's example, not mine) is not the substantive philosophical foundation for this ethereal alliance. Rather, as oft told by Mr. Roush, it's McCain's apostasy with conservatism and conservatives that excites the likes of Mr. Roush. Hence, Roush's snide comments about Limbaugh and leaders of the religious right. That, and McCain's quirky (and hypocritical) forays against the Washington establishment, of which he is a charter member.
So, when Mr. Roush suggests that conservatives need to "walk the talk," I take that to mean that conservatives just need to shut up and go away. Sec. Rumsfeld famously intoned that you go to war with the army that you have, not the army that you wish you had. If McCain intends to go to war with only Roush's army, and leaves his conservative vanguard behind, McCain will find Sec. Rumsfeld's comments rather prescient. And given McCain's unseemly antipathy towards Sec. Rumsfeld, the last laugh might well be Rumsfeld's.
-- A. DiPentima
Re: Quin Hillyer's The Ticket for McCain:
If we really want to win, and that is not likely unless the Democrats keep killing each other; McCain, who real conservatives will have to hold our noses and collective breath, along with a strong dose of sublingual nitroglycerin, before we can jerk his lever, will need someone who appeals to the North and Jewish vote. Enter Joe Lieberman. He is perhaps the most solid "Democrat" in the Congress now that Zell is gone.
He is not my favorite choice, but he can help deliver the victory. Without a lot of Democrat dissatisfaction with their nominee we are doomed due to the ineptness of the last four years.
-- Jim Garlington
It's Haley Barbour for me.
-- Peter Everts
Battle Lake, Minnesota
Share this Article
Like this Article
Print this ArticlePrint Article