WE BEG TO DIFFER
Re: Philip Klein’s McCain Should Say No to Mitt:
Remember the 1980 campaign when Gov. Ronald W. Reagan selected his “bitter rival” George H.W. Bush as his running mate…
— Michael DeBerry
McCain has a great choice for Veep. It is none other than Fred Thompson. They are friends, Fred is reliably conservative, a man who knows how to state a position clearly. True, they may look a bit like Mutt and Jeff , but hey, they certainly don’t look like Curious George!
— Wolf Terner
Fair Lawn, New Jersey
You can try to discredit Romney and the conservatives supporting him all you like, but for the majority of the campaign El Rushbo, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck, to name a few were all pushing him pretty hard. If not for irregularities in the nominating process where the states that McCain won were winner take all and Romney seeming to win all the proportionally divided states the race may have turned out differently. In fact, now that the economy has proven to be the topic of the election I seriously wonder if Romney would not be the candidate today if things had moved a little quicker. Romney does face some drawbacks in a national election. There is no doubt that all the people who threw away their vote to Huckabee will play some role, that in my opinion seems to be more a matter of Religious bigotry than conservative principles. Romney brings the greatest business experience on the stage. He took an institution like the Olympics that was a complete mess of overspending and bureaucracy and turned it into a well oiled profitable machine. Imagine what he could do if given the chance with our government. McCain foolishly made the statement about not knowing much about the economy, Romney brings that strength. Hopefully McCain will be wise enough to use it.
— Rob Andrus
Your article about Mitt Romney today is ridiculous, and it’s entirely possible that you’re nuts!
Our entire lives, as Christians, we’ve been told to watch out for Mormons — what are they going to do — are they waiting for their big break, and then they’re gonna pounce on us?
You have been drinking the anti-Mormon Kool-Aid and if you’re not nuts, then you are paralyzed with fear! Your article is written from your fear-based position in life. You must be concerned about losing something — power or money, one could imagine.
Mitt Romney is the most decent man around in politics today. Our country would benefit greatly from this wonderful man who has 5 wonderful children, a wife who loves and cherishes him, is a successful entrepreneur, and understands the basic principles and values of conservatism and republican ideals.
What needs to happen is that everyone needs to realize that once people get to know Mitt Romney, they will like him. If people can vote for John McCain — they will certainly receive a big bonus with Mitt Romney as VP. People are scared, just like you might be, of voting for a Mormon — plain and simple. So what they need is an opportunity to get to know and see for themselves how good someone like Mitt Romney can be for them.
I can think of no better ambassador for the United States of America than Mitt Romney! Words that describe him are: Clean & Articulate! Intelligent! Class! Entrepreneurial Spirit! Wit! Common Sense! Style! American! Internationally Friendly! Family Friendly! Congenial! Charm! Considerate! Experience! Complimentary! Enthusiastic! Positive! Not to mention Fun, Boyish, Manly & Handsome!
This type of journalism is an absolute shame. It seems like the world has flipped upside down sometimes. Maybe you need a stiff drink or something to sway your foggy thinking!
— Sheila Hansen
I would like to thank you for your excellent letter regarding reasons McCain should not choose Romney as VP. Too many of the Republican elite are trying to push Romney, as they did in the primaries. With all of the money Romney had to infiltrate the market and have voters get to know him, they chose not to for the reasons given in your article.
I also like that you did not write anything about Romney’s Mormon faith. As his defenders have tried to cry out that it was bigotry against his faith that made him lose, your article shows the many real reasons why voters chose not to cast their ballot for Romney. I for one did not care about the faith issue. I cared about having moral convictions and standing up for what is right. Romney seemed like the politician who will say anything just to get elected.
I hope McCain realizes that his straight talk express will be derailed in he chooses Romney. Not only will the democrats be able to use youtube videos citing all of Romney’s flip-flops, but they will also have at their disposal, youtube clips of Romney dissing McCain on the economy, immigration, and other domestic issues.
Thank you again for giving the American public a little straight talk about Romney.
— Debbie Edwards
Thank you for your insights on Romney in your recent article. Very refreshing.
Personally, as a Republican, I was initially open to Romney but his multiple stances on abortion, and marriage, and opposition to 2nd amendment, and Romney Care makes him very liberal in my eyes. Chris Matthews said it best after Romney dropped out, “He should have come out as a moderate for the Republican primaries” to be more believable.
I am awestruck by the number of factual errors and omissions. The facts are so clearly manipulated to coincide with the writer’s liberal bias against a decent man as to make one think we should not only keep him from the ticket but lock up our children and drive him out of town.
Yes. Romney failed to consolidate conservative support. And so did every other conservative who ran. That is why we have McCain as the nominee. Romney was not unique in this. Conservatives were too divided. However, toward the end, they began to rally to Romney, a fact the author thinks is moot. It isn’t. Those who rallied to him, the Limbaughs, Hannitys, Levins, and Coulters still support him.
While acknowledging Romney is a prolific fundraiser, Klein thinks it’s of no use to a publicly financed campaign. Aside from the fact that McCain could change his mind on that, it overlooks Romney’s ability to motivate the grassroots. While raising funds is good, raising volunteers is better, and Romney had an army of them.
Klein purposely mislabels the state health-insurance-reform as “universal health care.” Romney deliberately reformed the state health insurance to be cheaper, portable, and simpler and prevent it from becoming a health-care program. It is not health care. It is private insurance.
At the time Romney bowed out of the race, he had won eleven states, McCain 14. Klein tries too hard to minimize those wins, but each was hard fought and victory was sweet. In most of the other states, he came in second. Klein points to the only state where he was not in first or second place and makes no mention of the states he was. This is such an obvious distortion of race. To use a single lost state to forecast the general election result is dumb.
As far as evangelical voters go, they in large part preferred one of their own, Mike Huckabee. Most of the time, Huckabee beat both Romney and McCain among Evangelical voters. So to say McCain won more than Romney omits the obvious fact that neither won among that group. Klein is either being stupid, silly, or sly with this point of fact.
And those who lost their jobs know that Romney knows how to create jobs too. He knows what causes companies to have to layoff and as vice president will be able to help strengthen businesses and create jobs. When people lose their jobs, its because the managers are doing their job and making the hard decisions. I like a candidate who is not afraid to cut spending, and slim down a bloated bureaucracy engaged in unnecessary social programs. Clearly, Romney has the courage and strength to fight for taxpayers.
The assault weapon ban Klein refers to omits again an important fact: that the gun lobby was in favor of the bill. It was a compromise that was carefully negotiated and only illustrates how Romney can work for the best result so everyone comes out a winner.
How is it Klein can have his finger on the pulse of Republican politics and miss all this? Could it be that he did not miss it and just wanted to make sure the readers did?
— Lori Blomquist
We’ll see, Mr. Klein, we’ll see.
— Judy Beumler
Re: R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.’s A Modern Miracle:
I greatly enjoy your writing and your website. Please be sure to have your facts straight, however.
Neither Naples, FL, nor Naples, Italy, has a garbage problem. Mr. Berlusconi resolved the issue in Naples, Italy, within a few weeks of coming to office as he promised. He did what his fraudulent predecessor would not do during his two years of handwringing and fecklessness: Berlusconi provided leadership. Please give him credit for doing this.
Keep up the good work.
— Guido v. Hollande
I read your recent article on Ave Maria. I have to say that this is the sort of article that gives journalism a bad name. The article makes it clear that you have no idea what you are talking about.
I don’t suspect that you are interested in learning the truth about what has happened here. If you are interested, ask the school to send you all the communications it has received from the ABA about the matters in question. The ABA keeps such matters confidential but the school is free to disclose those communications to you. I suspect that they will refuse to do so and you then ought to wonder why. If you saw those documents, you couldn’t possibly have written the article you wrote.
I have a word of advice for you. I wouldn’t bother to defend the actions of the people you praised in the article. Their actions have been scandalous and I don’t think it is in your interest to defend them. I can only think that you don’t really know what has happened here. If you did know, you wouldn’t have written what you did. I don’t think I’d defend their actions without knowing what has happened.
I don’t have the time to detail in an email the history here. I would be happy to talk with you if you care to know that truth of what has happened here. Please feel free to contact me.
Please say a prayer for Mr. Monaghan and Mr. Dobranski, and also for all the people they have harmed.
— Richard S. Myers
Professor of Law
Ave Maria School of Law
Ann Arbor, Michigan
BREADBASKET NO MORE
Re: Jens F. Laurson & George F. Pieler’s Zimbabwean Shame to Share:
Mr. Obama must go immediately to Russia, China and South Africa. He can elevate their moral plane merely by giving one or two of his “change” speeches.
Certainly Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid will agree to pass whatever ah, er, incentive, is required to bring these nasty nations on board.
For example, China needs oil. Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid could shepherd through their respective fiefdoms a bill outlawing the use of all petroleum products in the US. The prohibition could be delayed for a week so new technology would be available to replace oil. This is the time frame Senator Schumer speaks of. Thus America solves China’s oil problem.
Those two intrepid leaders would certainly vote to give Russia our missile defense system and latest military technology. That, along with Obama’s rhetorical abracadabra should resolve Russia’ paranoia that someone is out to get them.
South Africa is easy. Instead of telling them he was raised in the Midwest — actually it was Hawaii, but that is so far east he can be forgiven for thinking of it as west — he could say he was raised in South Africa and “feels their pain.”
We could give South Africans welfare and universal medical care in return for them saying Mugabe is not a nice person. Also since Chrysler is having such a bad time, Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid could contract with Chrysler to purchase one Chrysler car per South African per year for the next 10 years and pay in advance so Chrysler could be salvaged.
God Bless me! Democrats have a solution to every problem and every solution requires suffering by productive, working Americans. Nothing ever changes.
— Jay Molyneaux
LEAVE THE KIDS AT HOME
Re: David N. Bass’s Batman Turns Bad:
Mr. Bass it is clear you are no comic book fan. If you were, then you would not only be happy with the Dark Knight’s presentation, you would know from where it comes. Batman, the comic, was never the campy, funny defender of truth and justice that the 1960’s television show would lead you to believe. While you are absolutely correct that parents should do more research before they take their children to such a dark movie filled with adult situations, this movie is a faithful adaptation of the Batman comics. Then again, the Dark Knight’s portrayal of Batman would also present scores of parents with good opportunity to talk about the difficulty of making good moral decisions. It’s filled with imagery of the difficulty of the protector archetype. How do you fight the most evil, sadistic, and dangerous of people without becoming something like them? How can you keep yourself from going over the edge and into the pit of despair? I’m not going to attempt to answer these questions, I have no experience upon which to draw, not even second-hand. Instead, the Dark Knight makes a good-faith effort to answer these questions as does the comic book that is its inspirational source.
For all of you parents out there who wonder why comic book movies can be so dark and dangerous, try to remember something, please. Comic books are not necessarily for kids. Just because they have pictures in them doesn’t mean the storylines or the characters are the kind of saccharine caricatures that we normally associate with children’s entertainment. In Frank Miller’s (yes, the same Frank Miller who did Sin City and 300) rendition of Batman, called The Dark Knight Returns, the Joker beats Robin to death with a crowbar. Let us not forget that Bruce Wayne is motivated by the senseless killing of his parents right in front of him when he was a child. Again, not something we normally associate with children’s movies, is it? How “child friendly” is a story about a vigilante anyways? Batman has always been, from the very beginning, a story of a vigilante detective, struggling against the darkness of his city even as he struggles against the darkness within himself.
Wonder Woman was written by a polygamist (really). It’s filled with imagery and storylines dealing with polygamy and homosexuality. X-Men characters are killed, mutilated, and otherwise darkly affected on a continual basis. Some of the latest storylines include battles between Wolverine and Cyclopes that end with Cyclopes dead and Wolverine missing a hand. Even Superman and Spiderman, the two most “wholesome” of DC and Marvel’s main comic lines, have had their dark days.
The reason that Batman Begins and The Dark Knight are such very good films is that they stay true to the story and themes of the Batman storyline. The actors provide amazing performances and the screen writers are excellent, which helps their cause. But they wouldn’t be such good movies if they attempted to return to the camp and silliness of the Batman TV show. For supporting evidence, I provide you with Batman Forever and Batman and Robin, both made good money but both were horrible movies.
I don’t think the studios are really marketing this movie for children. The previews that I saw (and I saw plenty) all suggest the dark and dangerous atmosphere of the movie. And as for the action-figures, try to remember a couple of things. First, the collection of move-based toys has been a part of the geek subculture (the subculture that breaths and breeds comic books) sense the Star Wars days. And second, you can buy your child a Dark Knight action figure without taking them to see the movie.
And finally, I’m not about to suggest taking your child to see this movie. I wouldn’t take mine, I know the Batman series well enough to know better. But once she has turned the corner into the double-digit range and shows the maturity to understand such dark and complex themes, I will have a different approach. However, when you consider the plethora of influences out there right now, you can do a lot worse than a brooding Dark Knight.
— Charles Campbell
Finally, I’m not the only one who found the non-stop savage brutality sickening and unnecessary. I walked out after 1 hour and 40 minutes and was sorry I hadn’t left earlier. How many good/innocent people would I have seen being viciously murdered if I stayed another 40 minutes? The only complaint I have heard about the film is that it was too long.
I’m not a prude but there is zero redeeming social value in this movie, just an exercise in the director and producer’s indulging in their blood lust. Even if the bad guy (Joker) dies at the end, which I didn’t stay to see, it is of no consequence or penalty considering the dozens if not hundreds he caused to be sickeningly and violently murdered. Cops and D.A.’s are just expendable fodder to be murdered to enhance the plot of this atrocity that opened with a bang. No wonder our children find it so easy to kill.
— Stacey Greene
I haven’t seen The Dark Knight, but I’ve gotten the gist now from plenty of sources that it’s a bit much for children.
I can empathize.
In 1968, my Dad took me to the Star-Lite Drive-in outside Lansing, Michigan, to see the premiere of George Romero’s original B&W “Night of the Living Dead.” It was rated “M.” I was 9 years old. We didn’t go because I wanted to see it (as a matter of fact, I didn’t know what was playing…I just knew it was a night out at the drive-in with my Dad), we went because HE wanted to see it and it got him out of the house while not having to pay for a babysitter.
Within the first 30 minutes of that movie, I was in the back of the car, crouching on the floorboards behind the front seats begging my Dad to go home. I had nightmares that night and occasionally after that about things I’d seen in the movie…and it obviously made an impression on me because I’m writing about it now 40 years later in great easily-recallable detail.
While most of the parents taking their younger children to see The Dark Knight are just ignorant and not keeping up on what’s in the movie, there are I guarantee you a handful who want to see the movie themselves and look at the cost of the ticket as cheaper than a babysitter.
So to parents who take their kids to The Dark Knight, just remember: It’s your own ignorance and poor decision making that are to blame for the kiddies nightmare phantasms later that night…not the movie’s PG-13 movie rating.
— Dave Schallert
Mr. Bass is spot on is stating the ultimate responsibility for assuring children view appropriate movies is the parents. “PG-13: “‘parents strongly cautioned'”: it indicates that parents may find some content of the film unsuitable for children under thirteen.” Parents can search hundreds of sites that give detailed information about movie content before they take their children to the cinema. The willingness to subject under aged children to completely inappropriate (and often nightmare inducing) movies reflects laziness, poor judgment or a willingness to allow children to make the adult decisions for their parents. (I do not exclude myself from this statement: I took my daughter to see Superhero Movie because the protagonist was played by Drake Bell, a favorite of my daughter from the Nickelodeon network. I was shocked by the adult nature of the humor and language. I was lulled into a false sense of security by my assumption that since Bell was a star of a children’s show, any movie he made would be child friendly.) Ultimately, I was the one who failed my daughter, not Drake Bell or any marketer. They did their job. I did not do mine.
— Ira M. Kessel
Rochester, New York
Re: Eric Peters’s Chrysler Corpse:
I do understand what you’re trying to say, but gloom and doom won’t help Chrysler much. Also they do have a new crossover to compete with GM and Ford its called the Dodge Journey, and it has “best in class” mileage, excellent quality, and according to motortrend its better than the Ford Edge. I guess you omitted the Journey on purpose. Maybe making people aware of this product would help out Chrysler, which I’m sure you wouldn’t want to do. Give Chrysler a chance, Cerberus is making many changes to make Chrysler a competitive car company again. I’m on the customer advisory panel, and there are many people working hard to fix Chrysler after the Daimler looting. I’m sure you wrote an article condemning the “merger” prior to it happening…right? You seem to think you know a lot about the auto industry, so you must have known the merger would be terrible for Chrysler. So you were screaming and telling everyone how bad the merger would have been, before it happened right? How about encouraging people to purchase a Chrysler vehicle in their time of need, instead of discouraging them. How’s that for a bright idea?
Can you say, Lee Iacocca?
— Jim Jackson
LIKE KICKIN’ A HORNETS’ NEST
Re: Daniel Paul-Schultz’s letter (under “REAL CLEAR CONTEMPT”) in Reader Mail’s Escape from Desiderata:
Started another day with a chuckle — Mr. Paul-Schultz made a powerful statement, but, lacking specifics, just curious as to whether he may have a screw loose. Or two?
Said he was representing Greenberg Quinlan Rosner “Research” (might he have left out another word: “Anarchist” maybe?), I read his pseudo-amusing rant, but still had some difficulty wondering what his point was…?
Have a great weekend.
Reader Paul-Schultz’s use of phrases such as “mentally disabled children,” “retarded,” “pile of garbage,” and “trash” prompted me to do a search for Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, the organization for which the very “astute” Daniel Paul-Schultz apparently works.
Click on Clients to see which individuals and corporations find GQRR’s research necessary.
— Hannah Robb
I must offer a tip of my hat to reader Daniel Paul-Schultz. Usually a letter whose only point is to call one of your columnists “retarded” (three times) and “mentally disabled” (once — presumably in case you don’t know what retarded means) arrives unsigned, or at least with a pseudonym. Not our Danny, whose letter proudly carries not only his name but the name of his employer.
Having never heard of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, I quickly visited their website. Here I learn that they are “committed to progressive goals, ideas, and leaders” and “work harder and think deeper than the rest.” I cannot vouch personally for the work harder part, but they certainly have the think deeper part covered.
I am a bit puzzled why Danny’s name does not appear on the Greenberg Quinlan web page entitled “Full Staff List.” Perhaps he is a new hire, or a summer intern. At any rate I wish Danny a long and prosperous career in left-wing flackery. His writing skills seem a perfect fit.
— Glen Hoffing
Shamong, New Jersey
Thank you very much for reminding all of us retards that we need to rely on your infinite wisdom to tell us when we are reading trash. Without geniuses like you this country would be even worse off than it is now.
As you know ordinary folks do not have the intelligence and knowledge that you possess. We just do not understand what we are reading. That is where you come in — to save us mere mortals, this country, the planet and of course, the universe.
I am sure that the folks at Greenberg Quinlan Roslan Research (must be a sort of think tank, I guess?) are most fortunate that you work for them. I would venture to guess that you are one of the smarter folks who work there, given your astronomically high IQ.
Most Americans, such as myself, have no measurable IQ. In fact, we cannot even read and comprehend anything more difficult than comic books (which has become easier since the Batman movies have come out; it really cleared up all those items I found incomprehensible in the Batman comics).
Anyway, Dan, thanks again for your advice. I look forward to hearing more from you; especially your much needed reminders about how retarded we all are and implicit in this remark, how just amazingly smart, intelligent, learned and knowledgeable you are.
Maybe you can write some articles in comic books for us to read — but keep it at 1st grade reading level so that all us retards will have at least a small chance to understand what you are saying.
— John Alexander
P.S. Since I am too retarded to write and spell anything, my 7 year old neighbor had to write and edit this letter for me. I think he used a computer, but I am not sure.
So, this is what passes for honest debate from our “compassionate” liberal friends: calling people “retards” when they write something they don’t agree with. Using the word “retard” over and over is just juvenile beyond words, but I suppose it is the only way for some to express themselves. But for goodness sakes, my 4-year-old daughter is able to express dissent without resorting to this type of name calling! Maybe Mr. Paul-Schultz should spend some time watching Sesame Street, Dora the Explorer, or The Backyardigans to brush up on his social skills.
— Eric Edwards
Walnut Cove, North Carolina
THE STUPID GENE
Re: Peter Ferrara’s Shut Up and Produce Some Oil:
Great commentary. I have a saying: Americans are inherently stupid. If Americans weren’t stupid then they would see the folly in the Demoncrats position. We get what we deserve.
So although everything you write is factually correct and justifiably right, Americans will not get it. We want what we ask for which is a nationalized economy and a statist government.
Look at how far Obama has gotten on his style over substance campaign. If the 50% of the population do not vote and don’t care, then we deserve to lose out nationally.
— Rich Taylor