HE'S NOT FOR ME
Re: Theodora Blanchfield's Mitt Calls it Quits:
Putting up with McCain will be short lived. He's certainly anathema to conservatives, having betrayed them repeatedly in recent years. McCain's love affair with the media will end the very moment Democrats select their nominee. His bewilderment will be manifest as the media turns against him, casting him as a malevolent dotard in the foreground, with an angry mushroom cloud in the background. When he looks to his base (mushy headed moderates) for support, they'll already have abandoned him for the media darling candidate of the left (probably Obama). Turnout for this insipid hack will be somewhere between nonexistent and light. If he collects more than fifty electoral votes it'll be a minor miracle. By the way, anyone running with him as V.P. will be committing political suicide (see Jack Kemp). If Romney had half a brain, he'd let Huckabee assume the (ahem) position. In short, conservatives don't need to sweat it. Throw your tepid allegiance at McCain, or not. In the end, it won't make a whit's worth of difference.
-- Peter R. McGrath
Winter Park, Florida
Mitt Romney made it official, the conservatives of the United States of America have lost the Presidency for the next four years. No matter who runs on the Republican or Democratic ticket, there will be a Liberal in the White House next year. Of course the same would have been true if Romney had stayed in the race.
Maybe there are still some conservatives running for House and Senate seats somewhere. Perhaps they will be elected, or not. If not, the liberals of this nation will look back on the last four years in Iraq with fond memories. They will look upon their dwindling 401K's with remorse. And they will not be happy when they have to take Spanish language courses to get a job here. Nor will they be thrilled with the reduced take-home pay that they now enjoy after paying for increased entitlements. So I hope that most people in the nation are happy. Some of us are not.
-- Michael Tobias
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
While the events of the Conservative Political Action Conference indicate that the ineluctable destiny of the Republican Party is to nominate a candidate who will, unquestionably, split and sunder the GOP (see my letter of January 28), there is solid evidence that also points to groups of existing dissidents within the Party who are adamant in their opposition to John McCain. Theodora Blanchfield witnessed not only the anguish and frustration of Romney supporters, but also their open and visible anger toward the heir-apparent, despite his attempt to "reach out" to GOP conservatives, hitherto considered an alien and wearisome gaggle by the Senator from Arizona.
When Signorina Blanchfield returned from her midday repast, she writes, she noticed signs in the Shoreham Hotel lobby that read, "Republicans Against McCain." Obviously, she was not paying too much attention, for there was also a professionally created sign that read, "Stop McCain's Amnesty" alongside, which, obviously, escaped her attention. Pity, that, for at different times during the afternoon and evening, I, personally and proudly, held both banners high. As to the "makeshift" sign, that was the inspiration of one of our group, who carries the eponymous name of Ray Pickles, and who, like many, believes the GOP should be made aware that many conservatives are not willing to accept the McCain steamroller, and will oppose him up to next November, as will I.
From the moment the signs were held aloft, we were surrounded by Romney supporters and those faithful observers who attend the CPAC each year. It was as if five Pied Pipers had shown up simultaneously, and the throng that gathered was intent on knowing how they could help spread the word about McCain's faux conservative credentials. One Arizona resident could barely contain her rage to me and my colleagues. Some of this took place while Sen. McCain was attempting -- once again -- to reassure the GOP base that, deep down, he's really a conservative, but afterwards McCain supporters assiduously avoided debating their candidate's conservatism. If they showed up at all, it was to ask, "...if we wanted Senators Clinton or Obama to win?"
I need not repeat the reporter's noticing that, during his speech, when the immigration issue was raised by McCain, the booing of McCain began in earnest. Senator McCain's smile does not mask that he is aware of the pulse of the Party and the nation on this issue; yet, like the incumbent in the White House, he will brush off this rancor as the actions of extremists within the Party. Of the GOP candidates currently standing, McCain is the only one who has steadfastly refused to sign a statement that he will not offer amnesty to the hordes of illegal aliens in this country. Oh! I forgot: John McCain came to CPAC to tell us how conservative he is!
This presidential election will test if conservatives are "pragmatic" or "principled." After 12 years of Bush presidencies, the conservative movement in the GOP is dying, and, as a result, the party is moving leftward. That is why John McCain must not be supported, even if the election is lost, because we must begin again to rebuild the party similar to the one that Reagan left. When one of McCain supporters ventured over to ask me, if "McCain was not better than Clinton or Obama," my response was: What's the difference?
-- Vincent Chiarello
If McCain wants my vote he'll have to prove he deserves it.
He spoke about American liberty at CPAC. Well, McCain-Feingold isn't what I would call free speech. Or liberty.
When I hear him publicly repudiate McCain-Feingold and promise to get rid of it I'll consider voting for him.
When I hear him apologize for lying about having supported tax cuts I'll consider voting for him.
When I hear him publicly change his attitude on illegals and special visas I'll consider voting for him.
I don't believe Hillary will be the nominee. That leaves the public a choice between a windbag and a gasbag. The windbag liberally burps the word conservative, the gasbag seeps grand sweet nothings. It's a toss-up whether the windbag runs out of wind or the gasbag deflates first.
McCain crashed three jets and walked away. There may not be any jets involved this time, but I predict that this time, as presidential candidate, he will crash and burn.
-- Wolf Terner
Fair Lawn, New Jersey
I will not under any circumstance vote for the man who:
1. Restricted my right to free speech with McCain-Feingold,
2. Wants me to pay $10 a gallon for gasoline with McCain-Lieberman,
3. Wants our military forces to interrogate terrorist scum by the Army field manual (do you suppose the bad guys might train for that sort of thing?),
4. Considered becoming the running mate for John Kerry,
5. Considered becoming a Democrat in 2001,
6 Was a founding member of the infamous gang or fourteen that set in concrete that it now takes a super majority of the Senate to confirm a judge,
7. Sponsored "amnesty" for 12-20 million scofflaws along with uber-Lib Ted Kennedy, and
8. Claims to be strong on defense and security but fails to even "secure the perimeter." Perhaps that is because he was Navy and knows nothing of the infantry, but I doubt it.
I have survived 8 years of the Clintons, and I can survive four more. John McCain will not get my vote. I have a good memory.
-- Jim Karr
Blue Springs, Missouri
If McCain carries the mantel of the party that left Reagan into the general election the party of moveon.org will win in a landslide. The American hating Left will storm into the White House with a mandate that will make Reagan's 1984 landslide seem like Bush 2000. Please remember that the Axis of Socialism (the Democrat Party, the MSN, the intelligentsia, and the bureaucracy) had hamstrung Reagan's push to reestablish limited, constitutional government by 1986. And this McCain induced tsunami will increase the Axis of Socialism's power in the House and Senate.
How then do we stop the march to expand the unconstitutional and collapsing welfare state? This march must be stopped for the road down expanding the collapsing welfare state lies tyranny. I have no allegiance to the results of this prevision of a primary. Why should I when McCain has shown no allegiance to the Constitution? We cannot win with McCain. Yet we will have lost if McCain wins. Our last best hope of remaining a Free people is to stop McCain from carrying the mantel of the party that left Reagan into the general election, whatever the price. And then pray God we can soldier on and stop the American hating Left that is the party of MoveOn.org. So let those of us who still love Freedom move on and remove McCain.
I am done praying for another Reagan. I now pray for a Patrick Henry.
To acquiesce to McCain is to acquiesce to the Axis of Socialism.
To acquiesce to the Axis of Socialism is to bow down to tyranny.
I will never bow down to tyrants.
-- Joe Diamond
I suppose there are a lot of disappointed conservatives around. With Mitt Romney removing himself from the nomination race, the Republicans are left pondering John McCain, a candidate that (1) stands for many things the conservatives are against, and (2) stands against many things the conservatives are for. Also there's (3) that it looks like this candidate has little chance of getting elected in November.
What options come to mind? (1) Conservatives could see whether they can hold their objections and vote for McCain, objections and all. (2) They could see if there's anybody left about to cast protest votes for in the primaries, something to give them a block of votes at the convention and the ability to make their voice heard. (3) They could throw up their hands and turn their attentions to the Congressional elections, forgetting the Presidency, just concentrating on returning a Republican majority to power. Or (4) they could just sit on their hands and stay home.
Maybe there's more options---I sure don't have all the answers---and it's still a long way to November, and anything can happen. But that's the way it shapes up to me right now.
-- Robert Nowall
Cape Coral, Florida
Until I hear Senator McCain apologize and say, "I was wrong" on amnesty for illegals, McCain Feingold, McCain Kennedy, opposing the Bush tax cuts etc., and basically sticking his middle finger up at all of us real conservatives, Obama or Hillary have my vote! When Mr. McCain does this in front of God and the world, then I'll know he is sincere in protecting the conservative principals and ideals of the Republican Party. I was hoping to hear that at his CPAC speech. But alas, no such thing occurred. But I did hear a lot of "I's" coming from his lips.
So, here it is Senator: You are a true American hero and I would follow you into battle to the ends of the earth and I so much want to support you. So sir, humble yourself and lets hear it and you will gain millions and millions of new supporters, probably over night. Thus assuring the words "President" John McCain in the very near future. The ball's in your hands sir. Can you run it in for a touchdown? I and millions like me will be waiting to see. Otherwise, the day after the election, we will be waking up to hear president elect Obama or president elect Hillary and no one in their right minds wants to hear such a thing. But right now, I don't really see a difference between the three of you other than the war. And I and millions like me are more than just a one trick pony!
-- Jim L
THE GREAT EDUCATOR
Re: Lawrence Henry's The Educator:
Another excellent column by Mr. Henry. Ronald Reagan was without a doubt the best communicator and he did that by directing his presentations to his real audience, his fellow citizens, the American people. None of the Republican candidates in this election have developed their presentation and interpersonal skills to match Ronald Reagan's ability in this regard but one of them can if he devotes the time and energy to develop his understanding of the real America that most of us live and deal with daily in our lives. To get that perspective is impossible during a campaign for President -- it takes more time and effort than can ever be allocated for a candidate trying to win over the hearts and souls of primary voters.
Ronald Reagan traveled the country and worked hard to learn about people and the issues and problems that real people have to deal with daily in their lives. He grew to understand that for people to be successful and to ensure that freedom continued in this country, people did not need more but rather less government influence in their daily lives. He understood and wanted less government intrusion and regulation affecting their businesses. He understood that a personal commitment to work hard and a commitment to personal success was necessary and he understood the personal satisfaction and financial success that individual effort and hard work can provide. He wanted people to have an opportunity to become successful if they were committed to working for it. He also understood that the government, whether federal, state or local, demand a continuing, had no right to an ever increasing share of the financial gains they have made because they chose to do the hard work to get an education, get a job, start a business and become successful.
He understood that government handouts like those envisioned by democrats are the very opposite of what is required to promote a culture of individual commitment and dedication to personal growth and success -- because these programs often reward inaction on the part of the individual and contribute to an attitude manifested in many that they can readily survive without making the personal commitment to work hard to better their lives, but only if these government giveaway programs continue.
Ronald Reagan was much more than a great communicator -- he was a leader who sincerely cared about people, even those who were considered to be his opponents -but one thing is for sure -- Ronald Reagan truly understood the real America and who the people were that make America the great country that it is.
-- Patrick Spooner
It is telling in his comparison of Ronald W. Reagan and George W. Bush that Lawrence Henry focused on the one clear difference -- skills of communicating with or educating the public. To put it kindly President Bush is no Ronald Reagan in this area, but on taxes, foreign policy, fighting terrorism, the borders, illegal aliens, supply-side economics, support of the military, etc. President Bush has built on the Reagan legacy and/or surpassed it. On the hallmark conservative issue of taxes President Bush has done something the Gipper was unwilling to do -- Bush never raised taxes while Reagan raised them 7 times.
What has happened since the death of Ronald Reagan is some have created a Reagan "cult of personality" that is now undermining not only Reagan's Republican party, but the conservative movement. One could describe it as destroying the real Reagan legacy. This cult of personality was illustrated on the Rush Limbaugh show when a self-described "Reagan conservative" caller from Arkansas castigated John McCain and then suggested she might vote for the Senate's most liberal candidate Barack Hussein Obama for President. A man who has stated his foreign policy is one of cooperating with America's avowed enemies, appeasing Islam terrorism, socializing medicine, raising taxes and enacting an anti-conservative agenda. That woman is NO conservative if she would refuse to vote for John McCain (the man who Reagan would vote for if he was alive), but embrace vapid leftist Obama.
Ann Coulter is no Reagan conservative when she promises to campaign for Hillary against McCain. Every so-called conservative who venerates Reagan, but now threatens a Republican victory in November by belittling the party's apparent nominee is not a Reagan conservative much less a person who admires the real Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan first and foremost was a pragmatist who understood it was better for Republicans to govern than Democrats. Like George W. Bush he believed in loyalty to the party as much as his principles. He tried to be a party builder too -- granted the GOP was in far worse shape after his 8 years in office in the House and Senate than it is today.
The angst many conservatives, especially those in the alternative media, are now feeling is of their own creation and can be traced to their adoption of MoveOn.org tactics to scuttle the Harriet Miers nomination, DPW, comprehensive immigration reform and jumping on the liberal bandwagon to pillory Bush for Louisiana's failed handling of the flooding in New Orleans post-Katrina.
It is time for real conservatives to say a pox on the "fair weather" conservatives who have helped rejuvenate the decaying Democrat party, undercut the Republican party and joined the left to torpedo the Reagan legacy. I don't care who they are and how many books they've written or listeners they have if they continue down this slippery slope they have become in the "name of Reagan" the death of Reagan's dream.
-- Michael Tomlinson
Jacksonville, North Carolina
Lawrence, thank you!
Well written; sweet, short and complete. President Reagan was one of a kind. He has no equal in today's Republican Party. Blessings on you, Mr. President.
I cast my vote for Mitt on 2/5, wanted to do it for Fred.
Come November, I will go ahead, hold my nose and vote for McCain, if he is the nominee.
Four years of dark days may be ahead, but I will consider myself committed to Hell if I stay home or cast a vote for a Democrat.
-- Jim Woodward
BIG LOVE IN BRITAIN
Re: Christopher Orlet's The Four Wives of Abu Izzadeen:
Regarding "The Four Wives of Abu Izzadeen," I think that it's only a matter of time before a major Hollywood figure realizes that converting to Islam will permit him to have a the four allotted wives and unlimited concubines. Mind you, many entertainment figures already live this lifestyle as a matter of course, but the conversion will enshrine this into law and have the added benefit of eliminating alimony. Once that happens, how long will it take for our elites to embrace Islam? Imagine if Tom Cruise could have kept, not only Katie Holmes, but Nicole Kidman, Rebecca DeMornay and Mimi Rogers? Scientology offers nothing to compare with that, much less traditional Christianity. Of course, given the bent of the National Council of Churches, it won't be long before they too embrace the "alternative lifestyle" offered by Shari'a, although it will be couched in terms of a revival of the earliest practices of the Old Testament.
The one good thing to come out of this is that having to mollify multiple in-laws may keep celebrities from having the time to hold forth on Global Warming, the homeless or any of their other pet causes.
-- Mike Harris
MAJ, U.S. Army
It's almost incomprehensible to imagine that any thinking person can look at the cultural debacle that is the Middle East, compare it with the overwhelming success story of Western culture -- and conclude that both are "equally viable."
How is this possible? Liberalism is all about substituting feelings for thinking. Perhaps it will take "feeling" the edge of a sword against one's neck before these "go along to get along" airheads understand what's really at stake.
Cultural suicide, everyone?
-- Arnold Ahlert
Boca Raton, Florida
Re: Carrie Sheffield's Hyde Park Project:
Ms. Sheffield writes: "Of course, the LDS Church is not alone in its offensive beliefs about blacks -- the Southern Baptist Convention didn't apologize for its affinity for slavery until 1995, nearly 20 years after the LDS ban was lifted."
It's an interesting perspective but a far from perfect analogy, the main difference being one of authority. Baptists believe in the authority of scripture -- the word of God, not the words of man -- and place the responsibility on those who preach God's word not to misrepresent it. Therefore, when Baptists use the Bible to justify something bad, it's on those Baptists, preachers and laymen, to get right with the scriptures. However, the LDS church is more like the Catholic Church in that ultimate authority resides not in the scriptures, but in the church hierarchy of elders -- after all, the hierarchy is the only body trusted to interpret the scriptures correctly. It was a ruling of the LDS elders to ascribe black folks to a second-class religious existence, and a ruling of the LDS elders that nullified such treatment.
Fair enough, they fixed it. But it places Mormons in the position of having to admit that either their elders were wrong before they fixed the problem, or that their ultimate religious authority was right both times -- before they granted equality to blacks, and then again after they did. If the former, then unlike Baptists, the reigning Mormon religious authority is capable of being wrong -- something that would concern me greatly if I were a Mormon. (What else have they been wrong about?) If the latter, then we have a capricious God who changes His mind about fundamental truths -- hardly "the same yesterday, today, and forever."
As a Presbyterian, I think the Baptist model is the correct one. Better that we ascribe the blame for religious mistakes to the fallible and fallen mind of man than to somehow place an indictment on His authority, or directly on Him.
-- Lee Dise
Virginia Beach, Virginia
NOT SO FAST, MR. NEUMAYR
Re: George Neumayr's The Elephant in the Big Tent:
George Neumayr's article started out sounding wise and thoughtful, but it turned out to be nothing more than a misleading plug for Huckabee. It gets tiresome to hear conservatives complain that Mitt Romney used to be pro-abortion, so "how dare he try to pass himself off as a social conservative." It is foolish to hold people to positions they held years ago, instead of being glad they had a change of heart. Nothing about how Gov. Romney governed Mass. indicates that his pro-life views were insincere, and having vetoed an embryonic stem-cell research bill, should quell any fears that he's not pro-life enough. Mr. Neumayr has no business judging the sincerity of anyone's change of heart, and millions of Americans who used to be pro-abortion have come to see the light on this important issue. Are they not "good enough" for Mr. Neumayr? Should we send them home from the March for Life? Mike Huckabee's conservative credentials stop almost completely on the issue social conservatism. Some conservatives in this country also care about protecting us from Islamic terrorists, and it's not unreasonable to look at Mike Huckabee and think he's just not up to the task. We don't have to support the guy just because he's right on life, if he's wrong on the other most crucial problem this country faces. I think the article was nothing more than sour grapes.
-- Yvette Shue
We've just read George Neumayr's article "Elephant in the Big Tent" -- TRUER words were never spoken!!
-- The Cogbills
Santa Rosa, California
WOULDN'T IT BE ICE?
Re: Russell Seitz's letter (under "Ice and Sea") in response to Christopher Holland et al. in Reader Mail's Knight and Day:
A little nit to pick with Russell Seitz's letter on Friday. It doesn't appear that he took into account the 8-9 percent expansion in volume of ice compared to water. When you factor that in, the resulting increase in volume of the cubic meter briny elixir only comes to about 22.5 liters, not the 25. So that's one less bolt required to contain the overflow.
I'm not sure I agree with his verdict on Miss Carr's analogy. By then time the ice melts in my Margarita, I'm usually not caring to the point where I'm actually measuring any volume increase. But I do agree with his assessment of her abominable suggestion of mixing ice and Scotch. What are we, barbarians?
BTW, I've got 7 feet of flipin' snow in my front yard, and that's not counting the snow banks. Where is the *#^&$% global warming when you need it?
-- Karl F. Auerbach
I am writing this in response to Russell Seitz's statement that "When a cubic meter of fresh water ice afloat in the sea melts, its melt water occupies 25 liters more volume than the seawater it displaced as ice."
This statement is simply not true and it is contrary to the laws of physics.
The total volume of water doesn't increase when ice melts in seawater. Water, due to its unique molecular properties, expands JUST PRIOR to freezing. When ice melts, the volume of fresh water it produces DECREASES in proportion to its volume in a frozen state. Since the volume of fresh water is less than that of frozen water; once the ice melts completely in seawater the resultant volume remains constant.
Also, the mass of the fresh water, pressing down on the saltwater, will increase the density of the saltwater, thus decreasing it's volume in proportion to the mass of the fresh water. It doesn't matter if that fresh water is in a liquid or frozen state, it's mass, and the resulting density of the saltwater it produces, remains constant. Once again, the total volume of water will remain constant even after the ice melts.
Try it for yourself: Mix up a glass of salt water, float some ice in it, and see if the resultant volume rises or remains constant once the ice has melted. You'll notice that the volume remains constant.
-- Raymond Swanson
Christopher Holland can change his statement to, "when the ice hits the water, 97.5% of the increase in sea level is complete" instead of "all of the increase in sea level is complete" to satisfy our sophist weatherman, Russell Seitz. George clearly misses the first order effect (I guess he could just be overly concerned about the minor effect -- 2.5% correct either way -- F student) and Christopher and Tricia miss a second order effect (97.5 % correct -- A students). Naturally Russell Seitz comes in to attack Christopher and Tricia. You would think that there was government science funding at stake or maybe some sort of theoretical religious controversy. I guess the lack of a Cambridge weather report means the weather is colder than average today. Does Mr. Seitz serve ice with his Kool-Aid?
-- Clifton Briner
Re: Neal McCluskey's College Tuition Inflators:
It was amusing to read of Senator Alexander's exhortation to the higher education lobby that it should close the "communication gap" between itself and Capitol Hill politicians. What a nice turn of phrase! In Boston, we call it a "shakedown".
-- Paul Curley
Share this Article
Like this Article
Print this ArticlePrint Article