A FORGOTTEN MAN REMEMBERED
Re: Brian S. Wesbury's Abused and Depressed:
Upon reading this review, I immediately thought of the "My Forgotten Man" finale of the film, Gold Diggers of 1933. This Busby Berkeley choreographed musical number illustrates contemporary attitudes on the period of which Ms. Shlaes writes. A scene showing soldiers marching off to war is followed by the same men standing in a bread line as Joan Blondell and then Etta Moten sing, "Remember my forgotten man, You put a rifle in his hand; You sent him far away, You shouted, 'Hip, hooray!' But look at him today!" I have always wondered if the Bonus Army March into Washington in 1932, as well as President Roosevelt's speech, was on the minds of the songwriters. The plight of women is also related through the following lines, "Forgetting him, you see, Means you're forgetting me."
While the film also has its share of frothy musical numbers and wisecracking comedy routines typical of early Thirties musicals, it is this finale that is still powerful over seventy years later.
-- Christine Willett
Re: Andrew Cline's Eight Blind Mice:
I finished reading your short piece by the same name in the subject line.
The writer blames Bill Clinton for the Saudi extremist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. That's odd, he wasn't the sitting president at the time. I believe George W. Bush was.
The truth is, Americans are fatigued by Republican terror tactics. Democrats are ahead in the polls because they want to end this foolish war/occupation in Iraq, they know that Americans want to improve the quality of life at home, and they know that strong international alliances are better bets at gaining intelligence and fighting terror groups than "go it alone" cowboy belligerence and bravado that is the way of this current conservative Republican president.
Americans want a new way, and the GOP's promotion of terror from Islam is as limp as Bush's approval ratings.
Any one of the 8 Blind Mice mentioned in the opinion piece of your publication is preferable to the foolish, neutered rooster in the White House.
-- Roger Dier
This essay has made it clear, if it needed to be made any clearer, that Democrats or should I say liberals refuse to see the dangers in front of their eyes. With unconscionable unconcern they blithely move forward with ideas of immigration reform, educational reform, and health care reform that will bankrupt the country, endanger the country, and sign its death warrant.
My question is now and has always been: How can these educated, intelligent, informed people actually believe what they seem to believe? For many years I have sought an answer to this question, however, that answer has eluded me. Now, in light of the asinine way that these, the supposed best and brightest of the Democratic Party have answered the proffered question, I must conclude that for them, people, the country, even civilization are meaningless when placed next to power.
No one who has watched the massive failures of Socialism and Communism in the past 50 years could possibly believe that these systems can ever work, yet they are willing, in fact, eager to put them into play here. No one who has watched the amping up of hatred for the U.S. and all it stands for coming from the Muslim world, complete with its threats of our destruction could possibly believe that the danger from these fanatics is real and palpable. In the shadow of what were the twin towers, and with the several threatened terrorist plots uncovered recently, denial of the danger is almost criminal.
I am forced to conclude that this blindness to destruction, to History, and the deafness to the threats that are uttered every day by mullahs all over the Muslim world is deliberate. These people must see this disengagement from reality as the quickest most effective way to power, and they must have committed themselves to it.
If they gain the power that they seek, tragedy will follow and it is a tragedy that could be prevented.
-- Joseph Baum
What group of Americans do this collection of socialists, isolationists and world travelers think they represent?
So, John Edwards wants to see the world and chat with other foreign leaders? How nice. Equality and diversity are the "real American values" he desperately desires to communicate to a world he's sure is anxiously awaiting his arrival. Just how a message about squishy, politically correct concepts like these would improve our relationship with the rest of the world's nations is anybody's guess. From my vantage point, his remarks were nothing more than a sanctimonious bit of pontificating by an elitist snob. It sounded to me like he just wants to travel the world on the government's dime. Ms. Hillary stated she would immediately bring home our boys from the front if they were still fighting the terrorists in Iraq. What a brave statement! Why, I get teary-eyed just thinking about it. This response was obviously her attempt to patch some of the holes she poked in her own political boat with her previous comments about the war. Barack Obama wants to resurrect Hillary-care before she regains the political momentum she lost talking about the war and because he seems to think it would be easy to do. Yes, Obama, spending other people's money is easy, but that doesn't make it the right thing to do. Bill Richardson wants to increase spending on education because, as we all know, giving educrats more money is the only way to ensure that our children have self-esteem and know how to correctly apply a condom to a banana. Dennis Kucinich's space ship has yet to arrive on planet earth. His statements trying to meld his views on world peace, nuclear disarmament, isolationist trade policy and a not-for-profit health care system clearly are the remarks of someone who is a couple of cards short of a full deck. I want to thank Chris Dodd for pointing out that my constitutional rights needed to be restored. Did he tells us which ones went AWOL? I hate it when I lose something and not know what I lost.
One thing I did lose after watching this so-called debate was my sense that Democrats really care about the security of their own country and the people who live here. Do they really believe that they can placate people who have committed their lives to destroying our political and economic system by retreating from conflict? Do they not take seriously the words shouted in anger every day by fanatic leaders vowing to make good on their threats to annihilate us? Do they honestly believe that attacks like those on 9/11 will stop if we reach out to terrorists with an olive branch in hand? While I have many issues with George Bush and his prosecution of this war, he at least recognizes the danger we face. I'm not sure these Democrats believe the threat is serious enough to make it a priority.
-- Rick Arand
Lee's Summit, Missouri
How is it that educated people either really don't get it, or choose to ignore the looming death and destruction that the terrorist are persistently plotting and attempting to make a reality? Do these Democrat candidates really not lay awake at night worrying about this?
The notion of "making nice" only allows foreign governments to take advantage of our mindless generosity but in the end it wins us no more respect or gratitude. I am sick and tired of appeasing bad behavior in a vain an attempt to show everyone that we are a good and just society.
It appears those other countries would relish seeing the U.S. knocked down to a smoldering ash heap. We must get serious about defending and protecting ourselves. Calling off the dogs and going home would certainly allow the terrorist threat to further metastasize and guarantee more large-scale mass-casualty attacks here at home. Unfortunately, the liberals will say that we had it coming.
-- John Nelson
The transformation of the Democrat Party to the democrat party is now completed. It was born in the halcyon days of George McGovern, Frank Church and Ted Kennedy. The Democrat Party had long been a mainstream political entity with more or less cogent philosophies and platforms.
It produced very popular Presidents -- Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy -- all of whom would be ashamed to associate with today's democrat leadership. But George McGovern established the "new" democrat constituency in the late sixties.
Mr. McGovern, in his unreasoned zeal to be against the Vietnam War, irretrievably bound his party to its present constituencies: people who have never accomplished anything, who are countercultural; dedicated to destroying The United States as it exists, and the fatuous Hollywood egos walking.
The democrat party is no longer focused on anything but winning elections. For only by doing so can it achieve the goals, set and unchanged for nearly forty years, of destroying this great nation and turning it into a liberal gulag. In this wonderful world to which they seek to give birth, the poor would be richly rewarded for being poor and apparently the workers would become slaves. I say slaves because if I can be rewarded for not working I ain't getting up at dawn and coming home at dark to earn my keep.
Their new society, the "WE" society of Mrs. Clinton's vision quest, is not Marxian for Marx took from people according to their ability and gave according to need. Ms. Clinton proposes confiscating wealth from middle class Americans because they are able to earn it and give to those according to their capacity for sloth.
Happily, I am sliding down that slippery slope of age and time to my final and probably just reward so I will not experience this utopia, where the government gives us an allowance; runs medical care for all of us like it now runs Walter Reed for soldiers, and of course, where do nothing politicians are the increasingly wealthy, untaxed ruling class.
-- Jay Molyneaux
Denver, North Carolina
The fact that the Democrat Party sees no evil is the only reason one needs to vote against them. They see only equivalence in world powers, more so when it is power taken by force. They see only problems with America, and the solutions they propose to these problems we now face are because of their past legislative bungles.
The Democrat party also sees no value in differing opinions. They 8 blind mice may all nuance their positions, but it's still the same Democrat socialist slop that's to the left of McGovern. The Democrat party sees no value in individual effort, only in the absolute power of government enforcement. But individuals should not speak "truth" to that power, especially against the Democrat party.
Lastly, where are our lame-ass Republicans? Going left...towards a McGovernite position of their own for one reason: the lame-ass fear of getting bad press. A lack of guts and a lack of resolve is going to Vietnam us again. The fight for freedom, for the nation and as individuals is ONGOING! It never sleeps. Yet these so-called Republicans want a 35-hour work week in which to govern, so they can Paris-Hilton their weekends and hope for more favorable press...which Republicans only receive upon changing parties, or going to jail.
-- P. Aaron Jones
Huntington Woods, Michigan
I guess I need to ask Mr. Cline if he sobbed or laughed uncontrollably after enduring the recent Democrat presidential debate? Regardless, it took strength to endure this numbing spectacle of stupidity. America and Western Civilization are at the precipice of an epic, unspeakable, societal altering moment in history, precisely when Democrat presidential politics has devolved into an offering, without exception, of dangerously naive fools. Jimmy Carter's all.
And while it may be satisfying to watch the Democrat ship of fools list badly to port, we conservatives are confronted with our own ship smashing upon the rocks of Immigration reform. Having been scolded by our President, the man we have grown weary of defending, that we "don't want what's best for America," is it any wonder that we are at our wits end?
Frankly, among the Washington elites within the two political parties, it's now a race to see if radical Islam or the Third World invasion of America will be our undoing.
-- A. DiPentima
CAN FRED BE THE ONE?
Re: Jennifer Rubin's State of the Race:
Jennifer Rubin's handicapping of the race for the Republican nomination was interesting, and I note that she seems to consider Fred Thompson something of a lightweight with much to do and to prove. Fair enough.
However, while she's undoubtedly correct that Thompson "must more clearly define a rationale for his candidacy other than the 'conventional conservative who has been smart enough to avoid others' mistakes,'" I suspect that all the handicapping now going on is over-analytical.
There's a lot to be said for being a "conventional conservative" in the present atmosphere. Although the media and the Republican Party have gone to extremes in trying to sell the notion that the President is a conservative, I see precious little in his record to indicate that he deserves that label. The litany of his liberal, even socialist initiatives and cave-ins has been repeated on this page many times.
The very thought of having a president who will deliver on conservative promises makes me giddy. Conservative principles are simple, in the best sense of the word. I don't want to see another double talking hustler spend the next four years in a frantic attempt to persuade us that overseeing the half-measures quagmire in Iraq establishes his conservative bona fides while collaborating with Ted Kennedy, et al on suicidal domestic initiatives.
It would be nice if Mr. Thompson had a stronger resume, and if John Glenn hadn't cut him off at the knees in investigating improper Chinese influence on our government. Still, Mr. Thompson retains a mantle of integrity and simplicity that I like. I hope he enters the race, if only to make the smarmy Senator McCain squirm even faster.
I don't think we need a rocket scientist to lead the nation. In fact, the last time we had a (nuclear) scientist do so, the results were disastrous. I like to think that a man of principle with some fortitude and integrity is what we need more than anything, and all he'd have to do is stand firmly for some simple principles, mainly, I expect, by boldly brandishing his veto pen against the Democrats and their willing RINO allies.
The nation is desperate for a leader. We haven't had one since Ronald Reagan. How sweet it would be to have the Oval Office occupied by a man who would "just say no," and take the rest of the day off! I don't want a president who works hard eighteen hours a day selling off our sovereignty. If Fred Thompson can be that man, God bless him.
-- Mark Fallert
THE NEW CITIZENSHIP
Re: The Washington Prowler's Rahm Emanuel's New Voters:
Republicans should write CUSA on each other's foreheads. If the immigration law germinating in Congress became law, the newly created class of immigrants would be grist for the Democrat political machines in the big cities. Democrats already have dead people, drunks and dogs voting, sometimes more than once. New immigrants with their new status would quickly appear on their voter rolls.
-- Howard Lohmuller
I was taking a deposition in Los Angeles before Clinton's re-election campaign at one of the government buildings. The line of people to be naturalized and sworn in snaked out of the building around the block, across the street and through a mall. It was a massive campaign, paid for by the government to naturalize likely Clinton voters. Saw it with my own peepers. That was then; what will it be like now with 12 to 20 million illegals being amnestied?
-- Greg F
Delray Beach, Florida
PROFILES IN KENNEDY
Re: Charles G. Kels's Joe Versus the Volcano:
With the help of Senator Drunkennedy, I am certain the Profiles In Courage Committee can come up with a candidate as valorous and courageous as last year's recipient, Jack Murtha. Someone with the courage to battle vigorously for one's earmarks and to bully and abuse those who threaten them. Someone courageous enough to ignore their oaths to "protect and defend" their country (made as both a member of the armed forces and of the Congress), rather than lose support from MoveOn.Org and similar Soros pinko outfits. Someone courageous enough to reveal their inner buffoon at a moment's notice and to be willing to bring disgrace by their very presence in our hallowed institutions. Dingy Harry? Nancy Pelosi? Hugo Chavez? Perhaps the award could be shared by the Havana Twins: Danny Glover and Harry Belafonte. Any of these candidates would clearly reflect how much the Kennedy clan's luster has diminished and how meaningless the award has become. Perhaps the award could be re-named The Profiles in Treason Award.
-- Ralph Alter
THE LIST GROWS LONGER
Re: Jim Bjaloncik's letter (under "Read It and Weep") in Reader Mail's Tall in the Saddle:
There was a rather large something that Ohio Jim (Bjaloncik) omitted from his list of why this illegal alien boondoggle is virtually impossible to implement:
Not noted, 'til now, the huge increase in the bureaucracy to handle all the mickey-mouse paperwork inherent with such a momentous project, regardless of its worth, of the lack thereof...
How many thousands of paper-pushers would be required to process these millions?
The number might be bordering on mind-boggling -- and, of course, fiscally impossible (except to the legislators who'd happily put a smiley face on it and ignore or grossly underestimate the reality of the actual number needed). And the time to process the monumental mess? My God!
If one were to put a "Recall Dubya" petition in front of me, hell, I'd sign -- in a heartbeat. His idiocy in this illegal/border fiasco compounded by his dismal no-win approach to Iraq and constant caving to the socialist nutcases are reasons enough; and he had the audacity to call himself a "compassionate conservative?"
-- Geoff Brandt
Re: Dan Kirk-Davidoff's letter and Cookie Sewell's note (under "Carbon Copy") in Reader Mail's Tall in the Saddle:
A few friends and I have a theory worked out based on absolutely nothing: the sun is going to blow up 1 billion years earlier than those evil, neocon, right-wing Republicans are telling us because they don't want us building our starships and fleeing to Alpha Centauri thus eroding their profits from selling us cheap goods made in China and forcing us buy high priced gasoline!
Those greedy jerks.
I know; it's hard to believe but we have also discovered a solution. If we just sacrifice enough of the tinfoil wearing whackos the magnetic poles will realign and strengthen the Van Allen Belt to the point the destructive rays of the sun will be reversed and insure at least one billion more years of life.
Yes, it's just a chance this might happen. But we believe it's a non-negligible chance and isn't that worth the trivial loss of life of a few hundred nut cases living in their mother's basement at 35 years of age spouting nonsense on the Internet about subjects they know nothing about?
I think so! So I'll be happy to mail Dan Kirk-Davidoff and his ilk a gift certificate they can use at their local gun shop to facilitate this needed remedy.
-- Greg Barnard
Re: Cookie Sewell's note (under "Grease Merchants") in Reader Mail's Tall in the Saddle:
Two quick observations, if I may. Al Gore predicted a 20-foot increase in sea level. I predict a max of 20-inches. And I propose a friendly wager with him or any zealot backing his cause/religion, this:
Betcha that my prediction is closer. Five bucks? Five thousand? Thus, if the sea level increase is, say, ten feel or less, I win.
Any of you ding-dongs willing to put your money where your propaganda is?
I kinda doubt it. Yet, it is a serious offer!
And, Cookie, good observation. But perhaps the Illegal Immigration folks fail to recognize that (the late) Cesar Chavez was totally opposed to that open border concept and the inherent illegalities, contrary to his former partner (and apologist for all things "undocumented"?), Delores Huerta. Interesting, 'ay?
-- Geoff Brandt
Share this Article
Like this Article
Print this ArticlePrint Article