From the tone of the letters you are receiving in response to Ben Stein's missive on Mark Foley, it appears that Ben's statement about adult male gays and their attraction to young boys has the gay community in a tizzy. Several gay readers have responded that they, and their partners, would never dream about sexually abusing children and how no such attraction between adult male gays and young (teen and pre-teen) boys exists. Gay propaganda aside, all I know is what I see. Years back, I took my family to visit relatives in Massachusetts, and we took a day drip to Provincetown on the tip of Cape Cod for a whale-watching excursion. After returning from the boat trip, we decided to walk around town to take in the local color. We were well aware that Provincetown was an "artist community" with a primarily gay population. We may have been a little naive concerning how the good townsfolk would react to one of my children. At that time, one of my sons was thirteen years old and a very nice looking boy (he gets his looks from his mother). As the kids walked up ahead, my wife and I lagged behind. First myself, and then my wife noticed the heads turning, the fingers pointing, the wry smiles, and the lurid stares. This was not from one or two men, but from just about everyone we passed. Male couples would elbow each other and stop and check out the goods. I doubt that any good-looking woman walking past a construction site would have been checked out any more thoroughly. I was a little uneasy, but my wife was furious and we left Provincetown posthaste. So all this current indignation expressed by your gay letter writers rings kind of hollow with me. Also, could anyone in the gay community explain to me what NAMBLA is?
-- John Biernat
Saint Clair Shores, Michigan
Can a principled person of any political party believe Ben Stein's reality-free rationalizations about either Mark Foley or George Allen?
An intellectually honest editorial might have acknowledged that racists and pedophiles can have any party designation without laboriously ignoring reality to excuse the two recently discovered Republican examples.
And since he's conflating pedophilia with homosexuality, does he realize how offensive that might be to his "gay friend"? Since in Stein's lazy and erroneous moral calculus all gay men are pedophiles, doesn't it bother him that his many gay friends are also child predators?
It's sad to see Stein descend to such cheap and obvious hackery this late in his life. But it's another example of how Republicans, who will contort reality to the breaking point for the ends of political gain for its own sake, have left the electorate no other choice but the Democrats.
-- Tom Coffeen
Ben Stein has responded all of his critics here with a dismissive quote from Bob Dylan. It turns out he used the exact same quote in a column last March about those who complain about high gasoline prices. Don't his "dear readers" here at The American Spectator at least rate an original putdown?
-- Glen Hoffing
Shamong, New Jersey
It's been a while since Win Ben Stein's Money, in which I developed a healthy respect for Ben Stein, both as a master of intelligent repartee, and a very decent human being. I suppose it must be true, though, that the television lies. What I found on your website today would not have been quite so appalling, but for the fact that Ben Stein wrote it.
Mr. Stein makes the following reference "...the Democrats, whose primary constituency, besides the teachers' unions, is homosexual men and lesbian women."
Is there a reputable dataset somewhere upon which Mr. Stein bases this assertion? Perhaps he would be so kind as to produce it? Perhaps he's just talking off the cuff? I have to wonder, given the blatantly inaccurate, sweeping generalization he then goes on to make. One which I hardly ever thought worthy of someone so erudite and meticulous as Mr. Stein.
"I hope it won't come as a surprise to anyone that a big part of male homosexual behavior is interest in young boys. (Take a look at anyone renting Endless Summer next time you are at the video store.)"
I realize, dear Editors, that part of any magazine/website's job is to provoke thought, and perhaps, make some outrageous claims, inflame your audience, just to get the readers in, and most importantly, sell subscriptions and ad space. But this is a gratuitously divisive claim, and ignores the larger societal, and ultimately anthropological reality.
Human beings are no different than any other mammals. Regardless of orientation, humans seek out the young, strong, and fit for sexual partners. In this respect, gay men are no different than straight men. Just take a look at the age difference between the hero and heroine of any Hollywood film produced since the 1960s. (Better yet, I wonder how many gay men rent copies of Lolita? How many straight men?)
Mr. Stein claims to have many gay friends... did he bother to ask them about this blanket statement before printing it?
Only he can answer that.
-- Tyler Clark
A (sadly) former fan of Ben Stein.
"I hope it won't come as a surprise to anyone that a big part of male homosexual behavior is interest in young boys. (Take a look at anyone renting Endless Summer next time you are at the video store.)"
Ok, what don't you fools get!
Bill Clinton affair with an adult woman? Or a middle age man trying to get sex out of an underage boy! Duh, this is not a gay issue but a moral and issue, no wonder your kids are starving, and drugging themselves to death. Why can't we just be quite sometimes, instead of making idiotic statements. I think Dateline has been doing a segment on heterosexual men trying to date underage girls for about a month, so should we let these men that have been charged behind this program go free? As your statement below seems to support this type of action.
-- Carol Belnavis
Is this guy for real? Unbelievable that Ben Stein is defending a Congressman who is caught making seriously lewd and suggestive comments to a child, all the while touting his reputation as a defender of children. I could care less what Bill Clinton, or that matter Newt Gingrich did years ago while in office. This is about here and now and a grown man propositioning a child on the Internet. Foley needs to be brought up on charges and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Foley's crimes can't be justified using the crimes of others who came before him.
And in case Mr. Stein didn't know better, not all Democrats are lesbians or gay.
Shame on him for making light of a serious offense that should land Foley in a prison cell contemplating the mistakes of his life.
-- Mary Bourgeois
The argument that many homosexual men like young boys is absurd. There is no citation present in the article to support the statement, of course. You won't find any meta-analysis indicating such.
Suggesting that gay men in general like young boys is firstly an ultimate attribution error. All out groups (in this instance gay men) have the same characteristics, while we in group (heterosexuals) are all unique.
By definition, the word gay refers to a man who who's gender object choice is another man. A pedophile by definition is an individual who likes children. One cannot be gay and a pedophile at the same time. A man that likes boys is simply a pedophile; to also call him gay would be a mistake because gay men like other men. The gender object choice is not part of the equation in defining a pedophile.
In conclusion, your arguments are weak. You don't know what you're talking about.
I came across the commentary Ben Stein wrote regarding the Democratic Party and the Foley scandal. What planet does Stein live on? I am disgusted by his remarks that the majority of gay men have interest in young boys. That is a blatant and false lie. I have no interest in young boys as a gay man but I do have interest in the hypocrisy of the Republican Party and the Conservative Christian movement. The real issue is the cover up of Foley's behavior by the Republicans, not when the Democrats knew what and when. It has been made apparent that the Dems did not know any of this and it was still attempted to be hidden when ABC finally broke the story. Your publication and your views disgust me.
God help this country if we do not take back the Congress in November and begin to rein in the powers of our current Dictator Bush.
-- Ted May
Ben Stein's view of the Foley affair may be politically incorrect, but he's right nonetheless. And he has put his finger on the reason that the current unpleasantness won't harm the Republican Party in this year's elections: In the GOP, Foley is an aberration, and most voters understand that.
The more Democrat operatives holler about child molestation, the more voters say to themselves, "Hey, how come they're leaving out the homosexual angle?" And when voters see "bad homosexual," they almost automatically think, "bad Democrat."
The poor things are going to be beside themselves the morning after Election Day.
-- Fred C. Dobbs
Laguna Niguel, California
Ben Stein's editorial, "Hypocrisy, Democrat Style," is either based on a large error, or is grossly misleading. I hope it is the former....
That you "hope it won't come as a surprise to anyone that a big part of male homosexual behavior is interest in young boys," is totally false and shameful to perpetuate. If you didn't know it before, you do now.
-- William Orovan
No, after reading all these attacks on Ben Stein, the award for sheer hypocrisy truly goes to all the lefty, socialist Demorats and their mindless minions who seem to take all the same talking points from Daily Kos.
First, Foley is a despicable, gay pervert who rightly resigned and will never grace the GOP again. As far as I can see, every Republican has condemned his sickness and actions.
Second, what is the age of consent in D.C., or Louisiana, Florida, or wherever Foley practiced his gay, Internet sex? So, this is NOT a case of pederasty -- it is homosexual perversion. It is well documented that homosexuals are promiscuous and consider young men well within their "rights" as sexual targets.
Third, where is all the usual bleeding heart concern for the Demorats' core constituency: the gay/NAMBLA/freak wing? Isn't Foley just attempting to practice his core values? Who are all these socialists to "judge" him? It's just an expression of his inner being (albeit demented). You Demorats should be careful, all the gays may leave and you'll be stuck with only the teachers union and illegal aliens in your party.
Ben Stein has again proven himself one of the truest apologists for conservatism. Keep it up!
-- Andreas Yiannopoulos
Los Angeles, California
Why are the Republicans soooo slow??? Get the name and background of this last teenager in the news cycle. Something smells here big time, but the Republicans are always soooo stunned by this type of politics they get whipped badly.
-- Annette Cwik
As a (now former) fan of Ben Stein, I was utterly dismayed at his generalized conclusions about homosexuals and young men. He belongs in Oklahoma where ignorant, uneducated people make such baseless conclusions. But we all know that Ben Stein is anything but ignorant or uneducated. Maybe his homosexual friends favor young men, but mine don't. And as far as the hypocrisy goes, why doesn't Mr. Stein see the hypocrisy of the Republican Party to impeach a President for his conduct, while hiding and tolerating the conduct of one of its own.
Tell Ben that we expect better out of him.
-- Michael C. Redman, Esq.
The attacks on Ben Stein, if representative of the reader mail on this subject, suggest an organized campaign to silence rationale counter arguments. I wouldn't be surprised to see your reader mail, and that of other rational, thoughtful websites presenting independent points of view, swamped by hypercritical, rabid "reader" responses to any article supportive of the current administration and/or critical of its attackers. The obvious conclusion is that these attacks, with their questionable timing and rationale, are centrally orchestrated by CREW, Soros and their compadres in an October surprise. They effectively reinforce the widely held belief that the Republican Party leadership is impotent, with its deer in the headlights response proving them incapable of going for the gut in the clinches.
-- Andre Kujawski
San Diego, California
It looks like a lot of Democrats are up in arms regarding Ben's column. Foley resigned and there is an ongoing investigation. What more do these Dems (pretending they are conservative readers) want? What would Barney Frank say?
Ben was right on the money when he wrote that homosexual men have a great interest in young men, I have been approached repeatedly by gay men looking for sexual pleasure with a teenager during my youth. The only way they can perpetuate their deviant behavior is recruitment, no better time to influence the sexuality of a teenager than when he is forming his identity during adolescence. Ben was right whether the gay community wants to admit it or not.
-- John Orr
...Shame of you Ben Stein for even giving a hint of defending the actions of Rep. Foley. As someone who has lived in the public eye as an ordained clergyman I know first hand what it is like to live a life where you are a leader and people look to your person as much to what you say or the brilliance of your ideas when they assess whether or not to follow you. Our leaders need to get it through their heads that they must live by a standard where the bar is not simply doing what is right, but giving all appearances of doing what is right....
As for Ben Stein's other point about pedophilia and gay men. Unfortunately, he is right. While there are many gay men who will trumpet their long lasting relationships and that "loving relationships" is the face that the gay rights movement wants to put on in terms of public image and perception, the truth is very much different. The truth is that long term gay relationships are the minority. The truth is that promiscuity and partner hopping is rampant among the gay community. The truth is that many gay men also like boys. This is a truth that goes back to Plato. After all, what is a "platonic" relationship? It is different in the lesbian community, and this probably speaks to the reality that women and marriage tend to curb the male urge towards promiscuity; but in the gay community the dirty little secret we are not allowed to talk about is that homosexuality is more often about sex first and long term loving relationships second and that many gay men are also attracted to boys and young men....
-- Steve Baarda
While there is much more that I would like to say about Ben Stein's article and the replies to it, one thing is being overlooked. The young man in question lives in Louisiana. According to Louisiana law:
RS 14.81.3. Computer-aided solicitation of a minor
§ C.(1) Consent is a defense to a prosecution brought pursuant to this Section if the person under the age of eighteen, or the person reasonably believed to be under the age of eighteen, is at least sixteen years old.
There doesn't seem to have been a crime committed under Louisiana law.
-- Huey Long
I'm sorry you had so many people get bent out of shape over your article. They all missed the point: There's an election coming up in 5 weeks, and the Dems are looking for anything to smear the GOP. The Foley thing is a cheap sideshow distraction. He didn't even commit a crime. Coming close isn't "is," as Slick Willie would put it (showing reverence to sacred cow, Bill). There are more important issues to discuss rather than wasting the nation's time with a cheap soap opera. Boring...
I feel sorry for you, Ben, because now you are hit by brainwashed right-wing dogmatists (what the hell exactly are "family values" anyway...as if there is universal consensus on this) as well as the usual knee-jerk lefty hippie crap. I applaud you for having the courage the state your mind and for being correct more often than not....
Las Vegas, Nevada
After reading "Hypocrisy, Democrat Style," I summarily melted my Ferris Bueller DVD and every recorded copy of Ben Stein's money. The Hollywood elite and their talking points get me so riled. In this case, I had to reply.
Let us just say for a moment that one party controlled Congress, the presidency, and large swaths of the judiciary for an extended period of time. Let us just say that party was able to use tools of the media as great leverage to enfeebled the voting public with fear and ignorance instead of honest policy discussion. And finally let us propose that this same party is not content simply to compose policy in the dead of night without so much as notification of the minority party, but they insist on denigrating any dissent with vitriol and charges of coddling international psychopaths.
Now if that situation we ever to exist and a sex scandal were to come along that could finally grab public attention the way that the corrupt dismantling of the greatest county on the planet with graft and self defeating legislation could not, can you see why the minority party might seize upon that like a dog with a bone?
Wait where have I heard this before? Dramatic corruption and dangerous incompetence is not enough to diminish the political opposition so we will resort to a sex scandal! It sounds so familiar!
And you charge hypocrisy?!?!?!?!
In the midst of an administration that has reduce the prestige of the country, validated torture with my tax dollars, reduced the safety of my family by ignoring real threats and picking fights with nearly a billion people in the world at every opportunity, if it takes sex to awaken enough voters to get the math to restore some balance and accountability to the federal behemoth then so be it.
I am surprised and disappointed that anyone would attempt to defend the actions of Rep. Mark Foley. Assuming the accusations are true, no one should make excuses condoning what he did. At a minimum, his withdrawal from the House of Representatives should be the logical consequence of engaging in activity of this type with an underage boy. I must say, however, some responses to Ben Stein's comments seem to be little more than a cover for liberal rants.
Hart Crane's observation that "Bill Clinton did it, too" is a poor rationalization for the behavior of Rep. Foley is absolutely correct. Had he stopped there, I would have no quarrel with his remarks. It is the rest of his diatribe that provoked this response to his litany of sweeping generalizations. For a progressive thinking person he seems to have a peculiarly well-defined and absolutist sense of what is right and what is wrong. The entire thrust of the rest of his polemic centers on his obvious disdain for religious conservatives and what he thinks they believe. He attacks what he perceives to be a group of people who intend to impose their narrow brand of fundamentalism upon the unwilling masses. It somehow escaped his notice that he made clear and unambiguous choices as to the rightness and wrongness of all of the issues he cited in his comments. What separates him from those whose ideas he detests?...
-- Rick Arand
Lee's Summit, Missouri
I've always thought he was smart but he's actually quite stupid. Not to mention disingenuous, naive and disgusting.
-- A Canadian
Re: David Holman's Murtha and the FBI: The Director's Cut:
You don't like what he is saying about the mess in Iraq, so destroy him. What a strategy...though this is obviously effective (classic example -- Kerry was an honorable Vietnam vet until he had the temerity to run for President). For the sake of our country, can't you disagree with his position without digging up whatever you can find just to turn him into scum?
We as a country (left and right) are surely destroying itself in this current environment of toxic partisanship.
-- A concerned citizen
FEAR STRIKES BACK
Re: Quin Hillyer's Fear the Democrats!:
Quin Hillyer may be correct that Republicans could maintain their control of Congress through a "we're not too bright, but the Democrats are worse" message. But, there are some interesting parallels between the upcoming election and the mid-term 1942 elections. The 1942 position was the reverse however; Democrats controlled Congress by a healthy margin and Roosevelt had been re-elected in 1940. So how did the Republicans gain an alarming number of seats in the House and pick up 7 or so seats in the Senate?
Almost a year after Pearl Harbor, the all-consuming rage over the December, 1941 surprise attack was beginning to cool down. Americans accepted the war as a necessary evil, something inevitable that they had to endure and just wanted to get on with it. But, support of the war didn't necessarily translate into support of the party running the war. What angered Americans was the realization that we weren't prepared for war despite Roosevelt's pre-war statements and obvious enthusiasm for it (Roosevelt lied, kids died?).
1942 had brought a string of American defeats and setbacks: the Philippines, Guam, Wake, Attu and Kiska in Alaska and the lack of any progress against the Germans. Midway, despite admirable tactics on the Navy's part, was won mostly through luck. Also, in a silly and defiant stunt, the Navy had launched Army bombers from the Hornet and dropped a few bombs on Tokyo. But, merchant convoys were being sunk left and right in the Atlantic. One ship was sunk in sight of bathers on the beach. Dead merchant sailors, some horribly burned, were washing up in the surf. German submarines were having a field day sinking transports and the Navy was powerless to stop them. American troops sent to England weren't fighting, just sitting around eating Brussels sprouts and fighting intestinal gas.
The Democrats had demonized the Republican candidates as isolationists and appeasers. Ironically, 70 percent of the American public surveyed in 1941 were against entering a foreign war, so the "isolationists are traitors" message wasn't effective. The media supporting the Democrats piled on with the isolationist and appeaser theme finding every single Republican candidate unacceptable due to their past leanings.
After the election, the Democrats still controlled Congress, but tried to understand the meaning of the Republican gain. First and foremost was dissatisfaction with the management of the war. Second was unhappiness with the New Deal bureaucrats and their wartime policies. Washington had frozen prices of almost everything to prevent war time inflation, except wages, union voters supported Democrats so no surprise there. And, there were additional resentments over numerous other highhanded New Deal policies.
Americans may support continued involvement in Iraq, but not agree with the reason we entered the war or the way it's being managed. Republican failures in social security reform and illegal immigration reform disappointed many voters on the domestic front. Like the Democrats in 1942, the Republicans may and probably will lose seats in Congress after the 2006 elections.
-- Patrick Skurka
San Ramon, California
Two things seem clear to me after reading Quin Hillyer's article on the downside of Democrat control of Congress (although more likely the House than the Senate as of this writing). First, President Bush would finally (FINALLY) have to start using his veto power. Along this line of thinking, maybe we'd have been better off if the Dems had controlled Congress in the first two years of Bush's administration instead of potentially the last two years so he could have gotten some long overdue veto practice. And by most counts there probably wouldn't be enough votes to override his veto, thereby reducing the scope of the problem of a Democrat majority.
Second, a presidential impeachment would be the greatest gift I could hope for. Considering the country's distaste for the last impeachment proceedings (which actually involved a real and serious crime -- perjury), any move towards impeachment by the next Congress, based on the president's decisions to defend our people against terrorism, would start a backlash that would virtually ensure a 2008 Republican sweep. There might even be a few politicians, Hollywood personalities, MSM talking heads, or MoveOn supporters found hanging from light posts before it's all over.
-- Tom Cook
Raleigh, North Carolina
Hey Quin! Well, it smacks a little of desperation, although Sean Hannity's been using it as promo material for the past 9 or 10 months on his radio show. Some of his guests, though, like Dick Morris, seemed to disagree, but maybe not now. The undercurrent has certainly always been there to validate it, as the election of Bush brought real clarity to the debate over party philosophy, and the Democrats were outed. But as you've pointed out before, some really good news about Iraq is really what we need to help turn the tide of "kick the bums out" that the Republicans are facing.
At least, we got some attention on illegal immigration with the border fence bill, though it may be too late to help the Republicans politically. You favored the Pence proposal, not a bad thing, but the public is past that debate. They want action. And, Mexico's Vicente Fox is having a conniption fit about it, which is good. President Bush is scheduled to sign it into law while on a campaign stop in Arizona. But, if the Democrats win the House, what's your bet that the funding for the fence never sees the light of day?
Fear the Democrats? You betcha!
Ooga, and a booga
Send Pelosi to Tortuga!
OK, so I'm not a poet. At least it rhymes.
-- Mike Showalter
Great article by Mr. Hillyer. Says all the right things. Makes much, much sense. Actually too much, which is why the people who need to read it and ponder what he's said, won't.
But, you know, there are scads of people out here that aren't just laughing at the Republicans anymore. They seem to have even worse apoplectic reactions when the R-word's uttered or, even worse, when President Bush's name is mentioned. He is, after all, the devil incarnate to the Democrats, liberals, and lefties and their buddies in Iran and Venezuela.
Given the current bumbling-itis the elephants have, and given the machinations of that old Dem propaganda machine, the mainstream media, it'll be interesting to see how November's pendulum swings. It'd be a service to us, though, if we don't have another vote-for-me-because-the-other-guy's-a-horse's-patoot election, no matter how much that might be true.
-- C. Kenna Amos Jr.
Princeton, West Virginia
THE GREAT WAR
Re: James Bowman's review of Flyboys:
In my opinion, the best movie about WWI aerial combat is the William Wellman's 1927 Wings, with Clara Bow. It won the first ever Academy Award for Best Picture, beating out Sunrise. Beyond a gripping, tear-jerking story, it shows what real filmmakers could with just a...camera. The aerial stunts and combat scenes are absolutely stunning. They are real in every way. My father-in-law tells how as a child he accompanied his father, the Empire Theater Organist in Great Falls, Montana to watch Wings. Every night a half dozen or more people left the theater because they were so frightened by the aerial battles.
-- Happy Feder
It is customary nowadays to look upon World War One as a meaningless war, where no real issues were involved. And, to be sure, few will argue over the bottomless stupidity of generals on both sides who sent out millions of young men to die, in offensives that would take a few hundred feet of worthless ground.
All the same, I believe that if Germany had won the war, it would have been a most unpleasant world to live in. The Second Reich wasn't as bad as the Third Reich (what was?), but it was repulsive enough, and foreshadowed its successor in many ways.
Right from the start of the war, as mentioned in Barbara Tuchman's Guns of August, the Germans were shooting down hundreds of hostages in public squares and burning down towns as a way of terrorizing the Belgians and French into submission.
General Von Ludendorff, who later helped Hitler get started in public life -- and then recanted when it was too late -- helped dream up "war socialism," where workers from across Europe were kidnapped as industrial slaves to work in German factories.
Those who claim the Versailles treaty was too severe should read what the Kaiser, Ludendorff, and Hindenburg et al. had in mind if they had won. These plans included permanent annexation of northern France and Belgium, part of the "Pan-German" movement. And yes, America was on the list too, eventually.
Don't forget the treaty of Brest-Litovsk. After Germany defeated Russia on the eastern front in 1918, Germany annexed almost all of Eastern Europe right up to the gates of Moscow. The idea of building an empire in the east was a long-standing aim of the German military, before Hitler was even born.
It could even be argued the Versailles treaty was too weak in one respect. Germany itself was not actually occupied, except briefly in the Rhineland. So demagogues like Hitler -- and many, many others -- could scream that Germany hadn't been defeated, merely "betrayed," by democrats, and of course, Jews. And so, the peace of the 1920s and 1930s turned out to be no more than a truce between wars, the second one being even worse.
If young men are to die, at least let them finish the job, instead of having it thrown away.
Laying the ground for a new war.
-- John Lockwood
Re: The Prowler's Demolition CREW:
The Mark Foley hubbub points to Democrat confusion in the Right to Privacy debate. On one hand, Democrats suggest an investigation should have been launched into Foley's activities, apparently based upon the belief he was gay, and was "friendly" towards pages. How friendly? He sent an email to a male page, requesting his photograph and suggesting they stay in touch via email. It may have been creepy, but should it trigger an ethics investigation? A fair question, but if rigorous political correctness is the new standard Democrats insist upon, they just pointed a gun at their own head.
On the other hand, Democrats have shown excruciating concern for the privacy rights of suspected Al Qaeda terrorists and those communicating with them in the United States. Witness the full-fledged effort by Democrats to expose and cripple the NSA terrorist surveillance program. Some Democrats even threaten to impeach President Bush for using this vital tool.
It would be interesting to learn if the George Soros-sponsored CREW has violated privacy rights in their campaign of political assassination. Given the sleazy nature of the tactics used, their compliance with privacy laws seems unlikely.
"For now, the question for Republicans across the country is this: do you want Nancy Pelosi as House speaker, or someone like Mike Pence? That's where conservatives should be focused."
If the Republicans running for re-election in the House were to guarantee that someone like Mike Pence would be the next Speaker, they'd have some chance of energizing their base. Recently, their actions have spoken negatively. Out of control spending, earmarks, graft, and now a sex scandal. Of course the scandal was held and purposely leaked by Democrats who knew about it months/years ago.
My advice to the Republicans: Physician, heal thyself.
My current Representative is opposed in November by an aged Democrat who thinks the U.S. government was complicit in 9/11, so his job may be safe. I'm not sure about any of the rest.
-- R. Goodson
Vero Beach, Florida
For the past year and a half, I have been a reluctant Conservative/Republican. My representatives in the Senate and House have done NOTHING to earn my vote for their re-election this year. In fact, I was one of those voters who planned to skip this election altogether.
With this article and others I am reading, I will vote a straight Republican ticket next month -- my candidates did nothing to deserve it, but I just can't sit by and watch the Democrats steal this election with opposition research and dirty tricks!
-- Judy Beumler
P.S. Would someone please tell the "Foley spokesmen" to sit down and shut up? If all these reports are true, Mr. Foley has done quite enough. He is casts a bad light on sincere, recovering alcoholics everywhere. Mr. Foley, take your entourage and just PLEASE go away.
Hundreds of thousands, no millions, I guess,
Of Americans get up each morning and dress
In denim or tweed, polyester or silk,
Wash down some breakfast with coffee or milk,
Pack lunch for the kids, see them off to school,
Catch the 8:05, "can't be late, stay cool."
Noses to grindstones or buried in books,
Getting the work done, frantic looks
At the clock, hoping break time is maybe here.
"Oh good, lunchtime is getting near."
Manning jackhammers, attending each client,
Punching a time clock or self-reliant.
Mom has grown wheels as she chauffeurs the teams
Back and forth to practice, "Relax? In my dreams!"
In Grandma's life the comforts of age should lurk
But most grandmothers nowadays have to work.
Dad gets home weary from the day's helter-skelter,
Has dinner, then helps out at a homeless shelter.
These are the lives if everyday medium folk,
Who have no idea they're Inside-the-Beltway's great joke,
And pay their taxes to support these effetes,
Many of whom aren't worthy to sweep the streets.
Each time one of these predators strays,
In the Oval Office, or other inexcusable ways,
Forgiveness is asked, mea culpas made.
Should we look away? Nuts! We've been betrayed!
-- Mimi Evans Winship
Re: William Tucker's Iraq: A Mistake Worth Making:
Mr. Tucker, may I please say thank you for your article. You and Jed Babbin are among the extremely few voices publicly saying the truths that are supposed to remain unspoken. Many times I wonder if Jorge Booosh knows the truths that you and Jed reveal but won't say it, or if he is living in some little dream world of his own that belies the reality all around him. Thank you, sir. Please keep writing and speaking the truth. Maybe someday the public will wake up and hear your wisdom and know that it is true. I truly depend on folks like you and Jed for the unvarnished truth with the bark still on. Keep talking, I am watching your back/
-- Ken Shreve
Easy on poor Paul, you will make him cry.
-- Merlin Perkins
Share this Article
Like this Article
Print this ArticlePrint Article