UNDER THE BUS
Re: Robert Stacy McCain’s Crone Wars:
Hell hath no fury…
— Kent Lyon
College Station, Texas
I am only mildly embarrassed to admit that I’m greatly relishing the gnashing of teeth of the Hillary supporters as the Democrat party elite abandon her. Harriet Christian, Deborah Foster, and their crowd are learning the truth of the Democrat party, that it is NOT Democratic in the real sense of the word. It’s about holding power. For decades the Democrats have dishonestly called the Republicans elitists and racists when it is the Democrats who in fact practiced bigotry over the years, turning American against American with their constant calls for class warfare. Now that it’s happening within their own ranks the hypocrisy and phoniness are in plain sight.
The best part is seeing Harold Ickes whine. Hillary’s campaign seems to be full of weenies like Ickes, Paul Begala, Lanny Davis and Sandy Berger and the Daily Kos/Move On crybabies, not to mention her own bleating husband. (Yeah, James Carville is an exception, but he’s got Mary Matalin to keep him tough.) But if you think about who she is (a cuckold), what she has done (“We need the slots!” — White House Travel Office firings) and what she supports (The government will force you to buy health insurance and prosecute you if you don’t), it’s only logical that such men would support her.
— Paul DeSisto
I agree that Hillary has to support Obama to keep her options open for the future. But if Hillary supporters turn en masse to McCain and help Obama lose, it will reflect very badly on Hillary. She MUST bring her supporters around to vote for Obama. If Obama still loses, fine for her. But, she can’t have it both ways. Her supporters supporting McCain and she pretending to support Obama. If this happens, the base of the party will never support her next time. I know Hillary supporters feel they got screwed, but Obama isn’t the one who did it to them and they shouldn’t take it out on him. Hillary lost because she was out-campaigned and other sexist/racist factors that can never be proven but are still there in everyone’s minds and emotions. My personal feeling is that Bill lost if for her. If she were to divorce him and move on, she would have a chance to surpass him in popularity and also in what she may be able to accomplish. Keeping him is a drag on her chances. He is imploding personally and politically and has lost his skills. I think the Democratic party wants him gone. That is also why she can’t be a real VP candidate. Nobody wants him around.
— Stephen Wheat
Regarding “Crone Wars,” as a 60-year-old white woman, I want to say that all this whining and complaining does not empower women. It DIS-empowers them. Hillary Clinton would not be where she is without her husband. She is not a woman like Meir, Gandhi, Thatcher, and Merkel, who got where they were/are only by their OWN accomplishments. (And they NEVER used their gender to get votes.) I know a lot of older women who have told me they want Hillary because (we will also get Bill!). A lot of us women would love a woman president, but just not THIS one. It is because she is a woman (and brings along Bill) that she has been able to get all these votes. It has helped her, not hurt her. So many of these woman take it much too personally — that a Hillary Clinton loss is a loss for them. I say, “Get over it!” Projecting onto Obama and his supporters their own biases do not serve them well.
One more thing: I believe having her on Obama’s ticket is a terrible idea. For one, a black man and a white woman on one ticket is way too much for this country to handle at once. Second, she and Bill with their ambitions will do everything they can to minimize Obama’s presidency and make it their own. Finally, she keeps saying only she can win in the national election. She may be able to win most of the Democrats, but not the Independents or the moderate Republicans (many of whom are already supporting Obama). If she is on the ticket as Obama’s VP, not only will the Independents go to McCain, but it will mobilize those conservatives who would rather stay home this year to instead go out and vote against her.
— Cheryl Ross
I just heard the Harriet Christian clip on the radio. It is much more effective when you can hear her querulous, New York accent spewing away at the Democrats. She made some good points about how Hillary had been treated — even if you despise Ms. Rodham-Clinton you can have a tiny little sympathy for the humiliation she has endured at the hands of “her” people. Women continue to stand by her.
My question is this, if liberal women vote for John McCain, won’t he tack even further left than he usually sails?
— Judy Beumler
I am another very very very angry woman who could not attend the protest in Washington Saturday, but I absolutely feel the same way these women do. I have every intention of starting-up a website if Hillary is not the nominee that is specifically designed to get all of Hillary’s supporters to vote for McCain. The two ladies in your article are two people I would like very much to get involved in my website.
— Vicki Almeter
Concord, North Carolina
I am a Hillary Supporter, and there is no way either me or my family would vote for Obama. We will vote for McCain, if Obama is the Democrats’ nominee.
We are angry and we find it completely unacceptable the way Obama, his stooges, the Liberal Media and the DNC has treated her.
— Romila Thakar
Having lost the fight to get Florida and Michigan’s delegates seated in toto, Hillary must realize that she cannot win the Democratic nomination in 2008 unless she manages to convince a lot of delegates to switch votes, which will not happen unless Obama or one of his supporters produces a truly spectacular gaffe, one that even the media can’t ignore. While this might happen, it’s not likely. Hillary has to look past 2008 and position herself for 2012. In order to do this, several things must happen: Obama must lose the general election, as an incumbent Obama will be even harder to defeat four years from now, at least in the primaries. Also, if Obama is vulnerable to a primary challenge, it will be because he has failed on the scale that Jimmy Carter did previously. Hillary knows that this will damage the Democratic Party’s chances to hold the White House more than anything that she could do. A successful Obama presidency would force her to wait until 2016, and that’s just too long to stay married to Bill. She can’t take the vice-presidential slot for the same reason. If Obama wins in 2008, he will run for reelection in 2012, and she still has to put off her run until 2016. Again, that’s not her idea of a good time.
I believe that Hillary will take her fight to the convention, make the case that she is the only Democrat who can beat McCain, then gracefully (in public) accept the verdict of the party as Obama is nominated, but in private, she will work to ensure that he does not win the general election. Barack Obama cannot win without New York, and she will not let him have it. Oh, she’ll make a few speeches, attend a few rallies, and make all of the right gestures, but watch how little the Democratic Party machine in NY does to get the votes out on election day. Her supporters in Emily’s List and NOW will sit on their hands when Obama needs help, and may even turn out, very quietly, for McCain. An Obama loss in the general election would vindicate Hillary, who will spend the next four years blaming the far left wing of her party for the loss of a sure thing and triangulating to the center in order to position herself for another run against a Republican incumbent.
— Mike Harris
MAJ, US Army
“By Nov. 4, the battle lines may be drawn so starkly, with such powerful appeals to partisan loyalty, that even Hillary’s most bitter backers will feel obliged to vote for Obama.”
There is not a snowball’s chance in hell that I will feel obliged, nor will I have any inclination to vote for Obama. PERIOD!
I live in Florida and am still bitter over 2000. Why would anyone believe that the wounds of this primary will heal by then when 2000 is still festering in my soul. At this point I hold the DNC and the Obama campaign in the same reverence as Bush and the gang-of-five. There is no difference.
— T. Monack
N. Lauderdale, Florida
I am a 58-year-old male who was a Republican for 35 years. I came over to the Dems because of Obama. I feel like everyone is tiptoeing around the Clintons and I don’t want to offend them. As a white man from Alabama I can smell racism a mile away with the Clinton people. Her win-at-all-cost attitude sacrificing her own principles and using race to advance her cause is a terrible thing. She has lost the race and I know it’s difficult but there is a higher cause to pursue. I don’t trust the Clintons as I told my brother who happens to be a friend of theirs. There is a reason for her low integrity ratings. I hope the Clinton people will help us defeat the Republicans and prove those integrity polls to be false. I don’t know their hearts but at this point they have reinforced my mistrust.
— Patrick House
I read your article on Hillary Clinton and I will not vote for Obama. I have been a Democrat for all of my adult life and I have never seen anyone treated like Hillary has. Everyone has gone crazy over someone that has done nothing on his own. In Chicago his friend put his name on things that he didn’t even write. He goes to a church where a crazy person preaches, has friends that blow things and people up. For the first time I will hold my nose and I will vote for McCain. Unless we can get Hillary to run as an Independent.
— Inez Watson
P.S. I am also going to get others to do the same.
I just read the opinion piece by Robert McCain. Did he use the word “crone” on purpose, perhaps to enflame or demean “women of a certain age,” or is he really that stupid? Just asking.
By the way, we are not all “post-menopausal,” but many of us are of an age where we are more certain of ourselves and our opinions than women — and men — of an uncertain age.
— J. Malone
Robert Stacy McCain replies:
My 1967 Thorndike-Barnhart dictionary defines “crone” as “a withered old woman.” I refer you to this video, and ask if I have applied the term unjustly:
Would you also object if I referred to John McCain as a geezer, or suggested that he gets much of his support from geriatric wards? Sensitivity about age is so silly — we’ve become too accustomed to hearing 55-year-olds called “middle-aged,” even though it’s quite unlikely they’ll live to see 110. In fact, at 48, I could with some justice be called old, though I’m more careful in applying such language to my 44-year-old wife.
My apologies if I have offended you by my use of a term that (again, according to Thorndike-Barnhart) derives from a Middle Dutch word meaning “old ewe.”
P.S.: I didn’t think of that article as an “opinion piece” so much as an analysis, making the point that while older women may not be a trendy constituency, their wrath should not be taken lightly. That’s not an opinion, it’s a fact. Just ask my mother-in-law.
CUT AND RUN
Re: Jeffrey Lord’s The Backbone of a Chocolate Eclair:
Mr. Lord is to be commended for his insightful comments that should be a clarion call for those who think that Senator Obama is not what he claims to be.
Mr. Lord points out that Senator Obama had the oppurtunity to take a stand for change in his own church which, at best, is on the fringe of Christianity but actually exhibted intolerance and racism that the world was able to witness. Instead of accepting the challenge, the senator decided to cut and run. Mr. Lord points to that as an example of what Senator Obama will do when matters of state become difficult.
Now don’t get me wrong. I think that the senator should have left the church and Rev. Wright a long time ago. But had he done so earlier it would have been a statement of conscience and honor. Instead, the senator continues to show that he is simply another self-serving politician acting on what is expedient for his ambitions.
Unwrapping the present that is Barack Obama is a real tragedy because America really needs genuine leadership in the White House. The senator has shown to be more of a snake oil salesman than the next great hero of American history.
Good job, Mr. Lord!
— John Frilando
Lindenhurst, New York
I debated with myself whether to write this under the “Crone Wars” heading or under the Lord piece regarding the UCC and Obama. I do not want to take issue with the inner workings and controversies within the UCC sect. So I decided to use this vehicle for my comment. I fail to understand why anyone is surprised in the least by the treatment of the ladies by the Obama coronation committee. It was wholly predictable. Obama’s resigning from Trinity Church was also completely predictable. Only the timing and the ostensible cause was to be decided. Obama’s finally throwing Wright and Pfleger under the bus was totally predictable.
Now why would anyone say what I have just written. I have waited, somewhat impatiently, while the entire conservative/GOP side of the political spectrum has vetted the issues of Obama’s associations. We have seen the articles regarding the association with Rev. Wright, with Father Pfleger, with Rezko, with Ayers and his wife Dorhn (sp). Where are the articles regarding Obama’s association with the teachings and methods of Saul Alinsky, and who is he, and what did he preach? Alinsky would have vociferously applauded the handling of the Clinton female supporters at the hotel in Washington D.C. Alinsky would have vociferously applauded the Obama resignation from Trinity. Alinsky would have cheered Obama on as he threw Wright, Pfleger, and his own grandmother under the bus.
Much has been made of the Hillary Rodham senior thesis on the methods and teachings of Saul Alinsky. Much has been made about Alinsky offering Hillary a job, although she turned him down to go to law school. It has been noted that Hillary was an Alinskyite through and through. No one, it seems, wants to reveal that Obama is a total devotee of the Alinsky method of “community organizing,” though he never personally met Alinsky or studied under him. He did study under and learn his craft under three direct disciples of Alinsky in Chicago. Indeed, Obama went on to teach the Alinsky method of community organization and agitation. His web site has, or had, a picture showing him in front of a blackboard, instructing a class, with headings from Alinsky’s principles on the board.
If you will do just a modicum of research into Alinsky, and then go to the beginning of Obama’s career as a community organizer and come forward to today, you can see how he has been following the Alinsky teachings step by step. It is why he joined Trinity in the first place, as documented in a March 2007 article about Obama in the New Republic. It shows in the way that he insinuated himself with the king makers in Chicago. It shows in his steps to get elected to the Illinois state legislature and the way that he threw a long time Dem female icon under the bus to gain the seat. It shows in the way that he sucked up to the power broker in the legislature and then got his help in running for the U.S. Senate. It showed in the way that he has cut long standing ties when they became liabilities. Just as was Alinsky, Obama is about power for power’s sake.
Study the Back of the Stockyards community organizational efforts and results by Alinsky. Study the Kodak case of union organization and victory by Alinsky. Alinsky threatened a “fart-in” at the Rochester Symphony Orchestra as part of his Kodak campaign. What is the Obama equivalent? Study the information regarding Alinsky’s almost deification of John L. Lewis, and his United Mine Workers. Study the history of the education of Cesar Chavez by Alinsky and the subsequent organization of the migrant farm workers. Study the history of how Obama got the job of “community organizer” in Chicago in the first place. Yes, there are a few differences in end goals between Alinsky’s work and Obama, but there is no difference in the game plan for achieving those goals. Alinsky was proud of being a radical, semi-anarchist. His disdain for all things governmental is well documented. His positive model was the labor union model. Obama, on the other hand, while not disdaining the labor unions, at least as far as they can help him, tends to gravitate to government as his organization of choice to control all that is controllable. Obama is a one-world Socialist of the George Soros model. His announced plans and preferences clearly show that. Hence his preferred reliance on the UN, on international and bi-lateral summits and conferences. If he can get his way, he will likely team with Soros to erase, or at least blur, national boundaries.
Look, I am no professional writer. The Spectator has some fine writers on its roster of assets. I do not want their jobs. What I do want is to know why there has been a curtain of silence drawn around Obama and his devotion to the Saul Alinsky practices, methods, policies, and goal of power for power’s sake. Where is the research and feature article on this feature of the Obama thing, like there was with Clinton and his various “-gates.” Somebody at The Spectator needs to get it in gear and do the well referenced and cited piece that the public deserves to have pulled together in a readable form, and DO IT NOW.
— Ken Shreve
Not that anyone needs tutoring on the meaning of the phrase “damned if you do, damned if you don’t,” but Jeffrey Lord could not have done it better. I’ve been waiting for Lisa Fabrizio, a strenuous defender of the Roman Catholic Church, publicly to take umbrage at Reverend Hagee’s calling the Church “the Great Whore” and to chastise John McCain for accepting his endorsement. If not Ms. Fabrizio, any contributor to TAS. Obviously TAS has a point of view, but on matters such as this, fair is fair.
— Mike Roush
How does Trinity maintain its religious tax exempt status?
Sorry, but the mere hint of a political discussion from the pulpit would jeopardize our humble Missouri Synod Lutheran congregation’s status, how can such overt political overtures from Trinity survive the IRS?
Why isn’t anyone raising this issue?
— Doug Gremel
Re: John Lomperis’ Divided Methodists:
I believe there are two other major factors in why and how radical policies come to the floor in the Methodist Church’s General Conference. I can’t speak with any authority about the United Methodist Church; but the inner workings of my own denomination may provide some insight. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America has long been recognized to be as liberal and the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod is conservative. As with all “liberal” churches, committees are set up to “thoroughly explore and discuss” an issue followed by the prompt stacking of the deck — usually with the same people who brought the subject up or with known advocates. Usually, the historic orthodoxy of the Christian Church is relegated as simply one option among many and hardly used as a guide through such discussions.
Yet, as “underhanded in plain sight” this may be, it pales compared to the beast that is the National Synod (or General Conference). The first is that when parish representatives go to attend their individual state synod conventions and vote on officers and then representatives to go to the National Synod convention, they have no idea where any candidate stands on any issue. Any such disclosure is strictly opposed by the bishop. Instead, what is disclosed is something like: “X has been married for 23 years with 2 children — one in high school with the other about to graduate from college. X has been a business owner and member of the Rotary Club for fourteen years as well as a church council member for the last six years.” Not exactly the stuff to let you know if X in fact represents you.
The other factor may be a function of the widespread value Lutherans place in loyalty. (“Loyalty” may not rack up there with faith, hope and love, but for Lutherans its pretty close.) In discussing voting during state synod conferences, many if not most express a perception that even if they are against the measure, it is their duty to give the Church what it wants. I would suspect Lutherans are hardly alone in this attitude.
Thus the very breeding ground for Church policy is undemocratic and only nominally representative. This is how a denomination whose membership is center to center-right can be so liberal on its face. Its membership wants mission and the spread of the Gospel while there are those who place little stock in such evangelism except the Church as a platform for political action. Only on occasion will the membership stand up and say “no” to the direction it does not want to go. Would that were more often.
— Mike Dooley
TALK ABOUT OUTSOURCING
Re: The Prowler’s Hearings Impaired:
The Democrats have a lot of gall to come down against U.S. companies outsourcing when their actions have caused the most monumental outsourcing imaginable. Our once proud and accomplished nuclear industry was once the leader in the world. However, starting with Mr. Carter and continuing with Clinton and all the Democrats in congress we have lost this advantage and now must rely on foreign companies to provide nuclear engineering for power plants here in the United States.
— Thomas Bullock
West Covina, California
Re: Christopher Holland’s letter (under “Flummoxed”) in Reader Mail’s Barry and John:
Christopher Holland informed us:
“Flummery is an English dessert, like a light, whipped custard but pretty bland and tasteless and not filling at all…. I have had first hand experience of it because my mother often cooked it for me and my brothers when we were kids.”
Thus, proving the axiom, “You are what you eat”!
— David Gonzalez
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://thespectator.com/world.