Reader Mail

Extremism Is a Vice

As the Dems will learn. Plus: Courting disaster -- big time. Anti-Bush conservatives: who are they trying to kid? Leahy: Put up or shut down.

6.30.04

Send to Kindle

ROPE THE DOPES
Re: David Hogberg's Bush Spotlights Extremists:

Mr. Hogberg's article indicates why conservatives should take heart about the current campaign. While the media and the extremists have been savaging Bush since the day he took office, Bush and Kerry today are merely tied in many polls, even after 6 months of relentlessly negative press about the President. This shows how weak Kerry really is.

The Bushies know that their campaign needs to publicize a cohesive anti-Kerry message for only one month before the election, when most uncommitted voters are making a decision. It will be a surgical and effective counterstrike because there is so very much ammunition, particularly in Kerry's lifelong ties to extremism in every form, starting with his attacks on the American military after his 4 months of service in Vietnam.

Bush will win on the quiet choices made by millions of swing voters in the final stage of the campaign.
-- Steve Nikitas
Pittsfield, Massachusetts

David Hogberg's article "Bush Spotlights Extremists" captures the leftwards tilt of the Kerry Campaign. However, David seems to feel that the Bush campaign has not aggressively attacked enough on Kerry's liberal bent. I feel the Bush team is using their playbook as they always have, "By giving a man enough rope to hang himself."

Remember the debates with Al Gore. Bush was supposed to be a moron, could not speak, didn't have a chance. The debates were declared a formality. The bar was lowered to such a point that George Bush looked like a genius and Al Gore never recovered.

Now all George has to do is prove he is not Hitler, and show Kerry is so deep in bed with the far left. The moderate 8% will flock to Bush and it will be over. If he had attacked too early, Kerry would never have lurched so far left.

Again the Bush team has framed the issue, much to the liberals' dismay.
-- Tom Royce
Peachtree City, Georgia

I suspect the majority of those who will vote remember little of what was said and done five to ten months before election day. The battle is won in the last two months and Bush is well positioned for the final run. Patience will payoff, the problems of today will mostly be forgotten and the opposition will be vanquished. The American voter knows their positions and other than the junkies they are now growing weary of all the talk. Let's hope both parties will learn that the attention span of the average voter can't handle a ten-month campaign.
-- Richard Ledford

Bush is a Nazi? I saw a bumper sticker the other day, "Bush: Bringing Fascism to the 21st Century."
-- Donald A. Holloway
Chapel Hill, North Carolina

COURTING DISASTER
Re: George Neumayr's War by Judicial Review:

I agree with George.

In addition, let's put Richard Perle, David Frum, Doug Feith, David Wurmser, Scooter Libby, Judith Miller, Laurie Mylroie and the rest of the Chalabi Lobby in detention centers as enemy combatants until the treason investigation involving Ahmed Chalabi is concluded.
-- Charles Bowen

The sense of total frustration evident in George Neumayr's "War by Judicial Review" is palpable. Like many a concerned American, Neumayr senses and writes what a (conservative) "Court watcher" already knows: that a majority of The Supremes are leading this nation down a primrose path, aided and abetted by the likes of the radicals of the ACLU. In fact, one could argue that the ACLU already sits in on Court deliberations and participates in their decision-making. For the non-historically challenged, it will be recalled that the critics of Ruth Bader Ginsburg's nomination to the high court pointed precisely to her direct ties to that extremist organization. And she has not disappointed her former associates. From her untrammeled support of the world's most radical abortion license, strident objection to the death penalty, repudiation of all-male military institutions and, by her "winks and nods" embrace of the evisceration of the Constitution's 14th Amendment by her unlimited apologetics for affirmative action, she has, conveniently and effectively, served the cause of her former associates. "The Constitution is not a suicide pact," wrote one justice in the last century, but the decisions taken by the Court over the past several decades demonstrate that it is becoming one. And there is precious little that can be done about it.

It is nearly 8 years since the neo-con journal, First Things, offered an insightful examination of the judicial usurpation of politics. In each of the five essays, the authors, all well known and respected figures in constitutional jurisprudence, repeatedly underscored, "The illegitimacy of the Court's departures from the Constitution..." I cannot see any evidence that this "usurpation of politics" has, or will, change. Neumayr, and, I suspect, the majority of Americans would agree with Justice Scalia, who wrote in 1996: "Day by day, case by case, (the Court) is busy designing a Constitution for a country I do not recognize."
-- Vincent Chiarello
Reston, Virginia

Terrorists must be celebrating hysterically wherever they are hiding out and plotting their next butcheries.

Why shouldn't they be?

The Supremes' ruling certainly appears to be a substantial victory for those waging war against the war on terrorism. It also appears we societally still don't grasp we are at war -- one unlike we've ever fought -- or what the meanings of citizens and traitors and enemy are.

But I wonder what our servicemen and servicewomen -- especially ones currently serving in Afghanistan and Iraq, or getting ready to ship out to those places -- and their families are thinking about the treatment the soldiers might receive, if captured?

Are they thinking of civilians Nicholas Berg, Paul Johnson and Kim Sun-il, as well as Spc. Keith M. Maupin and Cpl. Wassef Ali Hassoun? Or of what their respective families might be thinking about the treatment of those men by terrorist cowards afraid even to show their faces?

I wonder, too: How is it with any conscience we march ahead daily, numbly, with federally sanctioned infanticide -- its victim count nearing or at 50,000,000 would-have-been-born Americans -- without any outrage from the ACLU or its cousins about the killing of those children and their rights, while screams heard in heaven arise about the rights and treatment of traitors and enemies?

Given the number of killings we've permitted through Roe v. Wade, we as a society have already outdone the combined murders by Hitler and his Nazis and Stalin.

But we must be sensitive to protecting the rights of traitors and enemies, right?
-- C. Kenna Amos Jr.
Princeton, West Virginia

What is the Supreme Court doing to my country? Yes, its my country too! Have those dunderhead Supreme Court judges have gone bananas? They have -- well, you know what they've done. They've saved the Constitution. For what? So the jihadists can have a Constitution Burning on Penn. Ave when they bring us to our knees?

Habeas Corpus has been saved!!! Horray!!! Now the terrorist can have their day in court. JUST LIKE THEIR VICTIMS.

We must apply our judicial standards to terrorists says the high and mighty. Excuse me, these are the same people who'd decapitate O'Connor at the drop of a hat, and wouldn't think twice about offing me or you. "But they have rights too!" wail the bed wetters and hand wringers. In my book a man trying to kill me or my family because I'm an American has no rights -- human rights activists and habeas corpus be damned.

I don't understand it anymore, sirs. This country will not survive if we are not strong towards our enemies. Leave no doubt, terrorists are our enemies. They care not for the precepts of American justice. They play for keeps and our liberal judges, Democrats, and apologists ain't got a clue.
-- Louis Jenkins
Shelby, North Carolina

HOMING INSTINCTS
Re: David Hogberg's Bush in Trouble and "Time of Troubles" letters in Reader Mail's Troubled Times:

I agree that the President has made bad moves in the likes of a drug program boondoggle and immigration policy. I have winced more than once in the last three years. I wish the Bush campaign team would start to play real hardball.

But when I hear Republicans say or write that they will stay home on election day do they hear and see President John Kerry? Is that a better alternative to a less than perfect President Bush? Do you stay at home voters think the left-wing bias in the media will get better in a Kerry administration? Do you really want the only alternative to President Bush? How about your local and state elections?

Go ahead and stay home. When things go from getting better and then take a hard left to worse after a Kerry administration come to town I have one thing to say to you stay at home Republicans: Shut your mouth and keep it water tight until the next election cycle. And take down all the mirrors in your house because you will not like what you see.
-- Diamon Sforza
San Diego, California

Afraid it would be a lot more fun to have Kerry in the White House to poke fun at than Bush to defend (or not defend, defending on the lucidity of the accuser.)

The trouble is people accuse others of being like they are themselves. So Democrats, barely repressing their criminal tendencies, accuse Republican officeholders of being criminal, whereas Republicans -- from those struggling to function to the out-and-out control freaks -- merely point it out when Democrats are buffoons.

Doesn't seem fair. The revisionist wars rage.
-- C

Were there NO disgruntled Republicans who still vowed to get out and vote for George W. Bush?

I, too, am disgruntled with his incessant spending and apparent unwillingness to veto a single darn bill, and am not especially happy with his policy on immigrants. But in many other ways Bush does represent leadership that I don't see in Kerry. He has shown that he CAN make difficult decisions -- we just need to continue to voice our discontent and hope he'll make changes that are more representative of our conservative fiscal values. I kept a Republican pollster on the phone for about 30 minutes recently -- and brazenly demanded that he "take notes" on my dissatisfaction on many Bush spending issues.

I am convinced that Kerry would indeed be so much worse than Bush both with respect to social policies -- AND spending/(taxing) issues. The Democrats were already screaming during the primaries how "No Child Left Behind'" is underfunded.

It also annoys me greatly that Bush has capitulated on getting his judicial nominees through -- perhaps that will change given another four years and changes in congressional seats.

I don't want Kerry getting any more activist judges on benches -- the ones already presiding are wreaking enough havoc on our society as they legislate from the bench.

There isn't ANY reason I can think of that would keep me from my civic duty to vote. Just thought you should hear from at least one disgruntled Republican who does NOT intend to be sick on election day.
-- Cathy Thorpe
Columbus, Georgia

In response to many fellow conservatives that plan on staying home on Election Day, I feel that would be doing a big disservice to our country and our beliefs. While President Bush has done many things to upset strong conservatives, he has also done many things to please strong conservatives that are being overlooked. In addition, the alternative, John Kerry, is extremely liberal. While I agree sometimes we need to send a message to our politicians at the voting booth, this is not that time. We are at war, and fighting a war against terrorism all over the world. The next president will have a great hand in how we continue to fight and win the war on terror. I am not willing to let that responsibility fall into the hands of an anti-war, defense-cutting, and intelligence-cutting liberal just to send a message to my own party. The stakes in this election are too high, and to not vote would put you and this country in harm's way. Come Election Day I know I will do my duty and make sure everyone I know goes to the voting booth to cast their vote for George W. Bush.
-- James Torrell

Conservative support hasn't dropped for President Bush over transportation bills, welfare and healthcare reform or social security, issues that barely cause a blip on the conservative radar screen ("Bush in Trouble," June 28).

Judging by talk radio, the base of conservative gatherings, conservatives are outraged over Bush's advocacy for illegal alien amnesty and privileges, his clashing with those trying to eliminate affirmative action, his federalizing education and healthcare, and his wild domestic spending sprees.

Conservatives are not shills and lap dogs, following a leader no matter how much he betrays them. While high-paid advisers push him on a downward spiral in the futile hope to gain a few minority votes, it comes at the cost of the loss of support and morale of his base.

Bush and his advisers wrote off the Southwest as Democratic territory, but although he may not care about driving away his base of support with his advocacy of special privileges and rewards for millions of illegal aliens, it certainly will cost him big time in financial support and conservative advocacy.
-- Caroline Miranda
North Hollywood, California

On reading some of the letters today, all I can say is, here we go again. Some conservatives are not going to vote for Bush because he hasn't stayed true to his conservative core principles, others are disgruntled over other policy decisions, etc. Quite frankly, who in the hell really cares about that BS? So you are mad at George because he is not the flaming right winger you (and I ) hoped he would be. Get real, people. Politics is funny. I know, I've been there. George is a lot better than Kerry and quite a lot better than any of the others who want his head. For all of his shortcomings, at least Bush is the best of the bunch and, no, he is not the lesser of the two evils. Look around you. What do you see? You see a country so into itself, so immoral, so self-pitying, that only a Messiah could straighten it out right now. At least Bush is heading in the right direction. Recovery of this nation will be a step at a time. So to these people: Stop whining. Bush is the best you're going to do at this time so get real. You can back any off the wall loser you want, but the liberals are going to walk over us again in November. Then we will be back to square one again.
-- Pete Chagnon

TURNING A NEW LEAHY
Re: Enemy Central's The Heat Is On:

Leahy accused the VP of cronyism, according to some, but if the charges were true, it would be much more than cronyism, the VP's actions would be illegal. Leahy is leading us to the edge of a clift and using up his good name and position in the hope that we are too lazy to check the facts before jumping off. If the VP has done something illegal, then get up some kind of prosecution or shut up.
-- Danny L. Newton
Cookeville, Tennessee

Like this Article

Print this Article

Print Article