Re: The American Spectator's A Great American Picnic:
Enjoyed looking through the pig roast photos.
One thing though, you may now incur the wrath of the National Organization for Women. As I'm sure both Katherine Ruddy and Amy Mitchell are very bright young ladies, they are also very pretty and feminine. Leave it to the American Spectator to discriminate against applicants from such places as the Carol Moseley Braun Inst. of Higher Learning and Wellesley College. And speaking of women's rights, isn't it about time The American Spectator did a cover story on the admirable Phyllis Schlafly?
-- Jeff Anderson
Re: Jed Babbin's The Confirmation Paralysis Agenda:
I rarely limber up my typing fingers to comment on an article by Mr. Babbin because it becomes so very redundant to keep saying that I agree, in general, with what he writes. Alas, this time I cannot resist the urge to chime in with a very large AMEN, but also a cautionary note or two. First the good news. I just saved on my car insur......OOPS -- wrong letter. I am completely in agreement with the generalities AND the specifics of the Babbin article. Would that he, or someone like him were POTUS so that the called for actions would actually occur.
Unfortunately, our POTUS is George W. Bush, and he won't do it. There was a recent article that stated that once the actual election campaign was over, Dubya virtually refused to take any action that he deemed "political." Thus he would refuse to use the bully pulpit to name his adversaries and weigh in against them or their arguments. We have seen this time and time again. He nominated a dozen folks to be judges only to se them completely savaged and slandered and filibustered by the radical Left and the Senate Democrats. What we saw out of Dubya was an almost offhand remark or several, but no concerted campaign push to bring heat on the obstructionists, such as Kennedy, Schumer, Leahy, Reid, etc., and certainly no naming of the opponents. One fine candidate even got fed up with the twisting in the wind and character assignation and withdrew his name.
Now we see the RINO squishes and Dem moles in the GOP caucus gain the upper hand and make a deal that throws two more of Bush's judicial picks to the wolves, and still Bush simply goes on his merry way. This has given the Left three "wins" and thoroughly emboldened them.
We have been further treated to the psychodrama of John Bolton of late. Again Bush has made a few almost off-hand remarks, but has led no overt ongoing campaign to get Mr. Bolton confirmed. Indeed, the White House has negotiated with Biden, Dodd, et al., almost to the point of a complete cave in, in an effort to simply get an up or down vote on the nomination, and no compromise has been sufficient to break the filibuster.
Bush has spent months and months letting the anti-war, anti-American Left, including elected Democrats campaign against the Iraqi war, unimpeded in any significant way by any concerted, ongoing counter-attacks by Bush, himself. His poll numbers have finally dipped so low that his staff has convinced him to fight back. Now we will see if Dubya's recent nationwide address was a single strike or the opening of a much needed campaign.
We have seen one area where Bush will fight back. He has done it before and now we see it again. He is quite willing to take on and chastise his base supporters. The latest is a shot across the bow that he, Bush, doesn't like it when the Conservatives criticize a friend of his (Gonzales). So Kennedy, Schumer, Dodd, Reid, et al. get off unscathed. So McCain, Warner, Graham, Chafee, Snowe, et al. get off without as much as a hint of dire consequences for their disloyalty to the Administration. But Heaven help the poor conservative that criticizes Gonzales, or the Bush open borders policy, or etc.
I shall hope for, but not hold my breath in anticipation of, Bush or Limp Frist adopting the suggestions of, Mr. Babbin in his excellent article.
-- Ken Shreve
If the White House and the Congress take on one-third of Mr. Babbin's initiatives, our Country will be in fine shape. What we need most is decisive and active leadership not feel-good, wishy-washy compromise and comity. (I have come to despise that word!)
As for the Supreme Court battles ahead, this is what Conservatives have worked for and contributed money to for the last eleven years. With each election we have put more Republicans in the Senate and House; now it is time those in power to get busy and start changing the Court. We want solid, conservative justices, who base their judgments on original intent, not fuzzy European, feel-good, dynamic existentialism. Let's take on the good battle one more time. With a win here, we will be energized for the next two or three nominees.
Jed Babbin for President!
-- Judy Beumler
Zero good will says it all! Nothing that Republicans can do for Democrats will mitigate their hatred.
You are exactly right. Republicans need to counter attack with maximum use of force. The slippage shown in media polls proves that Nature abhors the vacuum which Republicans have allowed by their timidity.
-- G.B. Hall
What a great way to start off my morning. Mr. Babbin reflects what I think: someone has to have some -----! Only problem, is anyone in the White House listening?
Just how many hours did it take Kennedy to open the door for Mary Jo?
-- Maxwell Bricks
Princeton, New Jersey
Bravo Babbin! All points are spot-on. It's high time for aggressive, offense-driven leadership. Take it away, Mr. President!
-- Doug Nichols
It is way past time for the President to stop playing patty-cake with the libs. Start going after those of either party that are trying to undermine America. The RINOs need to be targeted and get some real Republicans in place
-- Elaine Kyle
Cut & Shoot, Texas
Would that I had your optimism about Bush's upcoming nominations for the Supreme Court. The rule of law, respect and concern for this country is definitely not on this moderate Republican President's agenda. His oath of office is exactly the same as every officer in our military, and yet, protecting and defending the country against all enemies, foreign and domestic seems to be too big an order.
By his own admission, he favors amnesty for illegal aliens. He does not demand that ICE enforce existing laws against businesses hiring them. God forbid that those who cross the border have difficulty finding jobs, if they are willing to work. He pays no attention to the shooting war on the U.S./Mexican border.
Syria allows, encourages, and actively assists foreign terrorists into Iraq. Nothing is done by this country, except to bluster about how Syria needs to get its act together. A few JDAMs in selective places in Syria would encourage Bashir Assad to remember just how small his country is, and the consequences of spitting in the face of a superpower. But, no, that's liable to give some of the striped pants crowd in Washington a case of the vapors.
Speedily bringing nuclear power plants on line in this country would be a help in cutting down our dependence on foreign oil. Opening oil leases in the eastern Gulf of Mexico would also send a clear signal to the rest of the world that we are serious about weaning ourselves away from Mideast oil. But, that would upset big money developers in Florida, who fund the FL Republican party. In the name of politics, it's OK to ignore the good of the country. . .
Don't even get me started on the Congress. Every day, at least a half dozen Democrats make statements that are treasonous. Everyone breaks laws and ethics rules with impunity, secure in the knowledge there are no consequences, and their numb, dumb and uncaring electorate will return them to their lifetime job of feeding at the public trough.
Just once, I'd like to see the Attorney General open investigations into the leaking of classified material, and prosecute those found to have done so to the limit of the law. Of course, there's the Sandy Berger precedent/example on how tough this administration is on safeguarding documents/classified material. That has them all quaking in their boots. . .
I agree the appointment of a genuine conservative to fill O'Connor's place on the court would be the right thing to do. Unfortunately, even if GW has the cojones to do it, I'm afraid there aren't enough Republicans with backbone to ensure confirmation. Pity the poor appointee. His/her name and reputation are going to be dragged through the mud endlessly by leftist organizations, making the Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas hearings look tame. The spectacle will be sickening to those of us who love this country, and yearn for the day when our elected representatives in Washington had the best interests of the country at heart.
Look at the state of government in this country today, i.e., campaign finance reform, the Ten Commandments, and Kelo, recent SCOTUS decisions, etc. It's enough to make this old retiree eager to sign up and participate in the revolution, should it occur. Look at the country your grandchildren and their grandchildren, are going to inherit from us.
This country's biggest problem is that Congress and the SCOTUS are all convinced that we, the electorate, are stupid. We, the electorate, haven't done anything lately to convince them otherwise. We need to replace most of Congress, and impeach about five members of the SCOTUS.
If the Republicans wimp-out replacing Judge O'Connor, it might not be so bad if the Dems take over in 2006. If they deny President Bush of nominating the person he wants because he can't count on some of these jellyfish, then I'd love to see the Dems slap the Senate Republicans down to their hands and knees, watch Joe Biden tell them, "Go sit in the corner and shut up -- WE run this place now," and especially, let's see little Johnnie McCain try to run for President when he has all the stature of the Senate janitor!
-- Robert Auskalnis
I agree 110% with everything Jed Babbin wrote in his piece on how to go on the offensive and fight the liberals in the Senate.
Which is why I'm 120% sure Bush and the GOP won't follow his advice.
-- Greg Barnard
JUDGED BY THE CHAPPAQUIDDICK PARTY
Re: The Prowler's Nullification Nancy:
You proved in your article that Ms. Pelosi is the perfect Democrat. It would seem to me that in order to be a Democrat you must completely divorce yourself from any intellectual evaluation of any topic.
If a Democrat gave a thought to, for instance, who will lead the vitriolic and personal attack on whomever Mr. Bush nominates for the Supreme Court he or she would be faced with the prospect of a man who left a boozy party, drove his car into the water, left his passenger to die, swam to a hotel and made dozens of phone calls for the purpose of escaping responsibility-making that decision. He might have called the police sooner and saved the woman's life. But his politics were much more important than the life of an insignificant female staffer of his. This is the best they can do?
What about the nut case who heads up their party? He says that something over half the population of this country "never earned and honest living." He thinks mainstream America hates this country and all for which it stands. Mr. Dean's demagoguery actually does remind one of Adolf Hitler, with Dean's violence of language and theatrical posturing, rehearsed facial expressions and extravagant hand waving.
So Nancy Pelosi can't be very cerebral. She is a liberal!
-- Jay W. Molyneaux
Does Nancy Pelosi possess the effective IQ of an alarm clock?
-- Fred Baughman
Chula Vista, California
The revival of the uber-liberal Congressional Progressive Caucus prompted one of the caucus' co-chairs, Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), to say, "Democrats are hungry to hear their voice.'' Talking just to hear the sound of their own voice is something I've always maintained was a staple behavior of modern liberalism in the U.S., and I'm glad they are beginning to admit this.
-- Bill Attinger
"..Cornyn is now believed to be the President's point person in the Senate to help measure the level of support for potential nominees. 'He's the President's 'consultation' guy.'"
Do you remember the vice president being sent on the mission to find a vice? Same thing here.
Would there be any violation in constitutional law, etc., if a past nominee is renominated? I think that we owe it to Bob Bork. He was railroaded before and is a wonderful, patriotic man.
-- Gary Darby
FOLLOW DODGERS AND CUBBIES
Re: Peter Hannaford's O Tempora! O Baseball!:
A precedent for not building a new Nationals stadium is the Los Angeles rejection of building a new park; the fine old Dodger Stadium was upgraded instead. Wrigley Field in Chicago was similarly improved. Recall that Bobby Baker was in on the building of RFK stadium. As has so often been the case, political and financial machinations led to spending far more than originally foreseen. It would be a kind of poetic justice and sweet revenge if the politicians today declined to sign off on another new boondoggle.
-- R.L.A. Schaefer
SEVEN TIMES SEVEN
Re: Judd Magilnick's The Secret of the Bell:
If you're interested in a "proof" of how vital seven-ness is, you might enjoy The Reflexive Universe: The Evolution of Consciousness from 1976, by Arthur Young. The author was an inventor who worked at Bell helicopter. He studied Eddington's book, Theory of Relativity, under Oswald Veblen, perhaps America's foremost mathematician at the time, when "only twelve scientists could understand it" -- that is, right after it came out.
His own book is a fascinating "take down" from light through man, with each of the seven stages having seven stages of their own. So, you have 1.) light, 2.) nuclear, 3.) atomic, 4.) molecular, 5.) plant, 6.) animal, 7.) man.
Take 4.) molecular, for example. He breaks it up into 1.) metals, 2.) salts, 3.) nonfunctional compounds with covalent bonds, 4.) functional compounds, 5.) nonfunctional polymers, 6.) functional polymers (proteins), 7.) DNA & viruses.
As a math major, I especially loved a special appendix that delves with "seven-ness," in detail. Believe it or not, it's all quite mind bending.
BACK TO THE CONSERVATIVE AGENDA
Re: Gary Bauer's What's the Excuse for Inaction Now?:
Is a federal marriage amendment (FMA) a conservative thing to do? Isn't that government interfering where it should not be interfering? There are a million things more important than FMA. The FMA is never going to be passed and it should not be passed. Let the states do as they wish. If California and New York want to bless gay marriage, so be it. If Utah wants to reject gay marriage (unless there are three or more partners), so be it.
I would rather focus on:
* Education (vouchers)
* Supreme Court justice nominations (need a tight interpretation of the Constitution, no judicial activism)
* Economy (reduce taxes and reduce fed spending
* War on running dogs of Islamic hegemony
* Energy self sufficiency (nuclear power, conservation, mass transportation)
* Doing more business with our buddies and less business with China
Checks and balances as laid out in the constitution will no longer work (as though they ever did). An overactive court can subvert society faster than the people can get an amendment through (if they could at all).
By the way, why should the people have to fight to maintain the status quo? Doesn't the constitution place the burden on the advocate of change to sell it to the electorate via the legislatures and/or the amendment process?
-- Gordon Paravano
Share this Article
Like this Article
Print this ArticlePrint Article