KIND OF CONSERVATIVE
Re: R. Emmett Tyrrell’s Media Mood Swings:
Kudos to Mr. Tyrrell not only for his prescience, but vision in founding The American Spectator.
As for the Democrat candidates “leadership prowess” and foreign policy “experience” if condoning genocide, accepting millions of dollars in campaign contributions from dubious and unnamed foreign sources, advocating surrender in Iraq and the War on Terror, wanting to play nice with totalitarian dictators, allowing U.S. policy to be dictated by European whims and stiff arming America’s neighbors and leading trading partners ranks as “foreign policy experience” then Obama and Clinton have it in abundance. Their carbon copy domestic agendas are just as unimpressive — massive tax increases on working Americans, destroying health care, increasing pork spending, allowing decrepit and corrupt labor unions to set economic policy and an idolatrous “cult of personality” masquerading as wisdom and leadership. Whether it’s Hillary “Obama” or Barack “Clinton” they both promise an “Obamanation” for the U.S.
To his final question, “What kind of conservative would reject him (McCain) and allow either of the Democratic contenders to preside over our foreign or domestic policies?” — the same conservatives who blithely chortled “we can afford to throw away an election or two” in 2006 and regularly pimp Reagan’s name to undercut President Bush and Republicans to the benefit of Democrats.
— Michael Tomlinson
“What kind of conservative would reject him and allow either of the Democratic contenders to preside over our foreign or domestic policies?”
Possibly the kind who can’t forget McCain-Feingold or McCain-Kennedy or Comprehensive Shamnesty or the gang of 14 or the Keating 5 or the latest travesty, McCain-Lieberman, as our fearless candidate endeavors to lead us back to a greener more primitive 17th century.
Or maybe the kind who feels that the damage a Hillary or Obama can do isn’t all that much worse than the damage an open borders McCain can do. And a Democrat can’t terminally damage the conservative cause.
— Robert Randall
I am watching the Media Mood Swings concerning John McCain. Mr. Tyrrell states that Mr. McCain has to shore up the support of the conservative base in the Republican Party. Maybe. I suspect that one of the reasons Senator McCain emerged victorious in this primary season is because his plain speaking appealed to many who dislike that conservative base. To wit, I think McCain was correct when he called Rush Limbaugh a “circus clown” and called Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and, by extension, James Dobson “agents of intolerance.” I applauded when he investigated the waste and corruption of the Boeing Tanker lease deal. No, Mr. McCain doesn’t need to shore up the conservative base. The conservative base needs to start walking the talk. McCain can win in November with the help of Independents, but he won’t get that support by pandering to a clown, agents of intolerance and politicians who preach fiscal responsibility and governmental efficiency and deliver the opposite.
— Mike Roush
I find it rare indeed that I don’t share the bountiful exuberance and optimism of Brother Tyrrell. His concluding query in today’s column though, provokes one of those infrequent moments. He asks “What kind of conservative…” would disdain Mr. McCain and thus open the fetid possibility of an Obama or Clinton election. Well, the kind that is offended by Mr. McCain’s backstabbing and consistently shabby treatment of truer conservatives. The kind who adheres far more consistently to conservative principles than does he, the kind that dislikes him as much as he dislikes us. That kind and I’m just warming up. Don’t misinterpret this screed — I quiver at the thought of the bilious Hillary and the utterly vacant Obama winning anything, but just because choices one and two are awful doesn’t perforce make number three any more savory. Prove it Mr. McCain.
— James C. Eaton
THAT’S THE TICKET
Re: Quin Hillyer’s The Ticket for McCain:
This article is irrelevant to John McCain, thank goodness. Picking a VP for Mr. McCain is not about pleasing “conservatives”; it’s about pleasing AMERICA. Mitt Romney, a faker and a demagogue, belongs on no list other than the Oblivion List. Good choices for VP would be Tim Pawlenty, Charlie Crist, Tom Ridge, Rudy Giuliani (if Hillary is not the Democrats nominee), and Tommy Thompson.
Can I add that if these picks help to expand the Republican party toward the “middle,” that’s a good thing? The “conservatives” day is over. They did their thing — including a racist, nativist, anti-immigrant stink bomb, and it has left an odor that is unpleasant and must be air wicked away.
I wholeheartedly disagree with you that Mitt Romney “had every advantage this primary season and just couldn’t make it work.” John McCain had the large and early advantage of running in very liberal Republican states (except Iowa) and had the luxury of crossover votes from Democrats.
I posit that if John McCain had been forced to run in conservative states in the early going, he would be back in the Senate — and I would be a happy woman!
— Judy Beumler
Cox obviously satisfies the Reagan Conservative Wing but who is going to bring in the Evangelicals of which I am one. The VP must be a Conservative and an Evangelical. There is no way we win in Nov. without the Christian Conservatives. That leaves Sanford or Pawlenty.
— Rich Saron
OK, Quin. Mr. Cox, it is. He certainly has a list of solid credentials. You offer sound reasoning. And, he’s likable. But, haven’t we been here before? I can’t help but recall for the record, all of our ‘successful’ predictions so far, beginning with the Republican ‘victory’ in November, ’06. Lisa Fabrizio’s case for Fred. Mitt’s endorsement by NRO. And hey, even Rudy. And, who did we end up with? John McCain, the conservatives’ bane, that’s who! The typical Republican Party bosses ‘it’s my turn’ candidate, who has suddenly become the timely equivalent to Esther, who if unable to save the Republican Party, will surely save the nation. So, OK, we’ve all sucked it up, put one foot in front of the other and marched on, reticent, but determined, if only from a distance, to keep standing athwart history, and yelling STOP! at the top of our lungs, even as we mourn the passing of the elegant author of those immortal words, who’s shoes I know I’m certainly unworthy to tie. Who knows, maybe, this time we’re due, or maybe, I just need to change my brand of Scotch, and I don’t even drink, but I may start if this keeps up. Then, again, it could be I just need a dose of that hope mojo going around. I know this, we’d better be thinking outside the box on this one. If Chris Cox meets THAT criteria, then I’m in, here’s my penny ante. Thank God the Dems are in riffsville, at least for now.
But hey, what’s up with the suit Cox is wearing in the photo TAS published? Doesn’t look like out of the box thinking to me, unless it’s an old trunk. If that’s an indicator of his potential effectiveness in the VEEP debates, I’d say he needs a little advice during his ramp up. Hmm, what’s Naomi Wolf doing these days?
OK, rant’s over.
— Mike Showalter
Why not actually do something groundbreaking? If, as it now appears, Mr. Obama is the Democrat nominee, Mr. McCain may need some help in the Deep South, which in the Democrat primaries voted largely along racial grounds.
While I cannot quibble with any of the choices vetted by Mr. Hillyer, and assuming for some reason that the erudite and attractive Governor of Alaska is not desirable, I would urge some discussion of Zell Miller.
A maverick Democrat, yes, too old probably, but no doubt a straight talking, American patriot. A nice counterpoint to Mr. McCain, and still very popular in the crucial southern states.
— Jay Molyneaux
Denver, North Carolina
DEATH TO THE SALESMEN
Re: Doug Bandow’s Patently Absurd:
In his defense of pharmaceutical companies, Bandow omits any reference to one of the highest expenses of drug companies — commissions to salespersons. I have known sales persons for
pharmaceutical companies, and they are high earners indeed.
He also glosses over, by defending it, the other, even higher, high expense — advertising — claiming that it’s necessary in order to increase sales, but he includes advertising to “people” or “patients.” Is it not enough to inform physicians of the details about a new drug, or remind physicians of the proven benefits of older drugs — still effective, but not as glitzy or profit-making? Do they have to use scare tactics on ordinary folks, and invent new “diseases” and “conditions,” and give new names to old complaints [especially the alphabetic names, don’t you love ’em?].
Does anyone outside the profession know how much “advertising” money is already spent to get physicians to prescribe their products? Free samples to give away, do-dads for the office with the name of the new drug in brightly-colored bold italics, and more?
He also does not include the drugs that are created, advertised ad nauseam, and sold for vanity “conditions” like E.D.
He does admit that advertising is meant to increase demand, but I would ask “demand for what?” A drug the patient’s doctor already knows about, but prefers to prescribe something else — most likely an older drug, one still effective, but that produces less profit for the manufacturer?
Bandow did tug at my heartstrings for a moment when he described the sad plight of drug companies who spend tons of money in R&D, until I remembered that they’re R’ing and D’ing drugs that duplicate others that are already on the market [but earning less profit, or none because this company doesn’t have a comparable, or has one which has gone into pharmaceutical public domain (“generics”), and drugs for vanity purposes, and other drugs with new exotic names for conditions that can be treated at less expense.
I have seen television commercials that push a new drug without ever even saying what condition it is intended to treat [not a joke — you have, too], yet inviting the prospective patient to “ask your doctor if you need new Pseudopharmica.” I can just imagine her reaction to my asking my physician if I need “new Pseudopharmica.”
She’s probably crack me over the head and tell me, “No, stupid, because you’re not a woman. And not pregnant.”
No pity from me for the poor drug companies.
— A. C. Santore
The Internet has trained users to believe that “information wants to be free” and companies should be profit from their efforts by hosting gaudy ads on their Web pages.
Perhaps those selfsame hollow-heads expect the pharma companies to give away their ethical pharmaceuticals for free and make money from ads (on the pills, perhaps?).
— David Govett
NASTY TO NIXON
Re: George Neumayr’s Hillary Milhaus Rodham:
Comparing Hillary Clinton to Richard Nixon is wrong and just plain mean. What did Nixon ever do to you to deserve that kind of treatment?
I would be greatly surprised if I were the only person to make a crack like that.
— Scott C. Pandich
Oneonta, New York
George Neumayr writes, “Within Hillary’s calculated pauses the whisper of a smear suggested itself: Do we really want a Muslim defending America against jihadists?”
Barack Obama testifies to his devout Christianity. The fact that Obama’s father, and later his step-father, were Muslim, proves the point. Had Obama been reared in the Muslim faith, then switched to Christianity, these gentlemen would have been honor-bound to deal with the situation. One can only conclude that Obama was raised a Christian from birth.
Nonetheless, President Obama should watch his back when he jets off to Damascus and Tehran. Only a liberal Democrat with an uncommon gift of faith could believe that a Christian man, raised in a Muslim household, could win the hearts and minds of these Mohammedans.
— Dan Martin
PROFILES IN COWARDICE
Re: Hal G.P. Colebatch’s Nursing a Grudge:
While David Cameron may not get it (socialized medicine sucks) this information affords conservatives, Republicans and John McCain ammunition to attack Democrats and their liberal fascist Presidential candidates for wanting to do for our excellent health care system what national health care has done for Britain. This could be a major issue this November if we’ll frame it as the Democrats want to destroy a costly, but excellent health care system with an even more expensive and inadequate government run bureaucracy. Educating the public to the horrors of “Hillary care” or “Obamanation medical desolation” will take some effort, but will pay dividends at the polls and for American’s health.
— Michael Tomlinson