Pax Clintonia - The American Spectator | USA News and Politics
Pax Clintonia
by

THERE ARE QUESTIONS
Re: R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr.’s Hit Them Where it Hurts:

There is a very simple way to fight the Clintons and that is through ads on Radio and TV asking the following questions:

How much money have you made on cattle futures since your initial foray? If not, why?

What will four more years of Clintons in the White House accomplish that the first eight years did not?

Is Gennifer Flowers qualified to be president as she really slept with Bill?

What really happened to Buddy? Are you planning to get another dog?

If, as you testified, you can’t recall things, how are you going to recall your duties as President while in office?

What skills did you employ in moving Arkansas from 45th to 49th place in education?

Just a sampling…
Wolf Terner
Fair Lawn, New Jersey

Obama doesn’t stand a chance, no matter what he does. The simple reason for this is that he is too good a person to stand against the Clintons for long. Not that I’m greatly enamored with the man or anything, or think him more honest, fair, or ethical than your average politician. But he’s much better than either of the Clintons. Eventually he’ll be faced with the choice of hitting back in fair play, or seeming weak against this duo of political destruction.

I suggest this for Republican/conservative strategy. Let the Clintons and Obama fight it out. Quietly encourage it without seeming to. Back Barack and bolster him just enough to keep him a threat to the Clinton’s power aspirations. The more he seems a threat, the fiercer and meaner the Clintons will become, and the more damage the Clintons will do to their base and the Democrat Party.

Then, once Clinton has the nomination, tell the Republican candidate to stick to the issues and play nice, deflect the personal attacks the Clintons throw without responding. And then we fill the airways with reminders of the Clintons attacking the ‘first black candidate’ in their quest for power. And everything else.

After all, how hard can it really be to beat the Clintons? Only those who are deluded miss the fact that all they want is power.

Then again, I am preaching to the faithful, aren’t I?
Charles Campbell

Ah, if only the Clintons would treat the nation’s enemies with the malicious calculation and freewheeling ruthlessness they reserve for their countrymen! It would be Pax Americana indeed.
Martin Owens
Sacramento, California

Aw, c’mon Bob, there’s always room for a few more laughs. I mean, can’t you imagine the press conferences with the WH press corps? And, those “fireside chats”? Then, there’s always those hilarious IRS audits. What do you mean, we’ll be laughing ourselves silly the next 4-8 years.
Mike Showalter
Austin, Texas

BUSH WITHOUT BLINDERS
Re: Quin Hillyer’s Bush Called It Macaroni:

Thanks, Quin, for your expressly straight talk. If Karl Rove were still around, we could blame him for these five egregious debacles in “stimulus,” Israel, earmarks, handguns, and “energy.” Rove surely was at fault when McCain-Feingold, EveryChildLeftBehind, and the steel tariffs came down the pike. Now, sadly, we can only blame the President.
Darrel Hansen
Alamo, Nevada

Is this a conservative website? Two years ago no one would have thought that Quin Hillyer would become a Bush basher or that R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. would, for all intents and purposes, endorse Barack Obama for president. At this rate, Grover Norquist will soon start lobbying for tax increases for the rich!

I guess after several years of George W. Bush, Paul Wolfowitz, Tom DeLay, et al., and an embarrassingly anemic crop of Republican presidential contenders, you guys are developing identity issues. Hang in there: you’ll get through this. Let your inner liberals out of the closet and you can even give Paul Krugman, the Obama basher, a run for his money as lefter-than-thou.

Keep up the good work!
Paul Dorell
Evanston, Illinois

Quin Hillyer’s piece “Bush Called It Macaroni” should cement his award, as if it were ever in doubt, for “Optimist of the Year.” Reading Mr. Hillyer’s articles during the past months has left me with a certain admiration of his “glass half full” approach to the disaster that is President Bush. You can’t help but kind of like a guy who, drowning in the freezing waters enveloping the Titanic, is trying frantically to save the criminally negligent captain.

I admit I am a cynic when it comes to President Bush. I long for his departure just as much or more so than the typical Bush Derangement Syndrome sufferer, albeit for different reasons. Perhaps I see in Mr. Hillyer my lost innocence and therefore cannot bring myself to ridicule his enduring hope for the president.

President Bush could propose nothing in his State of the Union address that will rectify the consequences of his betrayal of conservative principles. He had his chance. He caved, like his president-father before him, and will rightly be remembered as a sell-out.

I enjoy Mr. Hillyer’s writing, but am now hoping he will avoid further discussion of President Bush and, instead, focus on relevant subjects.
Dave Mills
Rolla, Missouri

Quin Hillyer wants George W. Bush to “surprise” conservatives in his upcoming State of the Union speech. Good luck. The only surprise here is how long it has taken conservatives to figure out that “compassionate conservatism” is “liberalism-lite.” At least Democrats have been honest about their obsequious intentions to “buy” the American electorate. Republicans still haven’t figured out that their base doesn’t want government handouts for everything.

In reality, there were only three good reasons to elect George W. Bush twice: his stance on terror, Al Gore, and John Kerry.
Arnold Ahlert
Boca Raton, Florida

Sadly, President Bush has learned the lessons of Ronald Reagan’s second administration — lessons of compromise and pandering to the public that may have helped Reagan’s poll numbers go up, but were bad governing.

By the end of his second term Ronald Reagan (who saved the PLO from annihilation and recognized it as the official and only representative of the Palestinians) was riding a tide of popularity for “growing” in office — code language for compromising with Democrats by raising taxes, granting blanket amnesty and citizenship to millions of illegal aliens, appointing moderates to the Supreme Court and Federal bench, creating a new bureaucracy called the Department of Veterans Affairs, expanding the Departments of Energy and Education, trying to bring peace to the Middle East with an unworkable scheme involving a Jordanian-Palestinian “federation” and increasing Federal spending and deficits to highs unmatched in the history of the United States. But it wasn’t this pandering and wholesale sellout of conservative principles that made Reagan great it was his unwavering commitment to the destruction of the Soviet Union and securing America’s status as the world’s only superpower.

Bush should ignore both the right and left and focus on keeping taxes low, the economy chugging along and fighting terrorism the three things that matter most to him. To hell with poll numbers, the media, pundits and other “back seat” Presidents.

With the mythologizing of Ronald Reagan, beyond all resemblance to the man, the conservative movement has created a standard that makes it nearly impossible for a Republican politician to measure up. (Ronald Reagan the 40th President of the United States and the greatest President of the 20th century would be squarely in the “RINO” camp based upon what is now being called conservative.) The time has come for to let Reagan be Reagan and end the mythological conservative “Camelot” that is destroying any hopes of conservative ideas dominating the U.S. political landscape. For those foolish enough to believe a Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama administration would produce a new “Reagan” or conservative resurgence look to what such naiveté led to in 2006. In the immortal words of Barry Goldwater, another great conservative who wouldn’t be acceptable to most of today’s self-described conservative, “Let’s grow up conservatives!”
Michael Tomlinson
Jacksonville, North Carolina

It is so disheartening to us Conservatives to have neither a President nor his likely replacement candidates understand the proper and Constitutional role of government. How will the flood of federal debt, among other serious injustices, ever be stopped and eliminated? It is a sad time for America and her children.
David Shoup
Augusta, Georgia

WILLIAM TUCKER REPLIES
Re: The letters under “Beyond 9/11” in Reader Mail’s Days of Reckoning and William Tucker’s Giuliani One Note:

I appreciate the reader response and various takes on what Rudy Giuliani should or shouldn’t do to revive his campaign. I’d like to issue, however, with the reader who wrote: “We certainly don’t print the dollars we use to buy the petroleum products consumed in everyday life. As far as the Constitution is concerned, only the Fed can mint legal tender.”

Perhaps the biggest long-range problem in this country is that we are living beyond our means. We have huge trade and budget deficits. We are financing our budget deficit by selling government bonds, mainly to China, which now owns $1 trillion of our debt, about 6 percent of our GDP. The only reason China and other countries take our money or buy our debt is because the dollar has served two functions since WWII, as our domestic currency and as a WORLD currency. The world demand for dollars soaks up a lot of the excess of money printed by the U.S. Treasury. But we’re pushing our luck. The dollar has now declined and the Euro is becoming stronger and more commonly accepted. If the Euro were to begin REPLACING the dollar in international trade, the value of our currency would plummet. China and other countries might start unloading its U.S. debt. We would quickly find ourselves in the position of Argentina or Indonesia, begging for a bail-out from the International Monetary Fund. In this sense, we definitely are printing dollars in order to buy oil. Although the relation is not one-to-one, the only thing that allows us to shell out $160 billion each for oil is the willingness of the Saudi’s and China to take our dollars and lend us money.
William Tucker
Nyack, New York

William Tucker says, “Global warming is an obvious place to start. I know it’s mostly hype, but the point is people believe there’s a problem so it’s time to address it.”

Really? Who believes there’s a problem? Al Gore and the MTV crowd? Maybe a couple of years ago some people believed there was a problem, but these days the average citizen rolls their eyes at the mention of global warming. The libs may have this country fooled on a few issues, but global warming isn’t one of them.
Jeff Bruns

MEATHEADS
Re: Gregory Conko’s Where’s the Beef?:

In Mr. Conko’s rather lengthy, one-sided essay, there is only one sentence which even touches on what to me is the crux of the matter. In paragraph 20 he reports that “John Kleiboeker, of the Missouri Beef Industry Council told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that ‘the FDA may say it’s not required, but consumers may want labels, so discerning marketers will do it.'”

It has in fact been widely reported that the FDA report does not call for labeling cloned meat products as such. Why? In most cases it is illegal for a food company to sell a can of beans or a box of cereal without listing all of the ingredients as well as the names of vitamins and minerals and the Daily Nutritional Value those ingredients provide. It is illegal to sell clothing without tags showing the fiber content and country of origin. In many states it is illegal to sell a house or even a car without divulging material defects. It is illegal to sell pharmaceuticals without listing contra-indications and possible side effects, and of course the compound’s ingredients. Printed materials promoting financial products must comply with a whole range of federal, state and industry regulations aimed at ensuring the purchaser understands what he or she is buying. Indeed the essence of our commercial system rests on the simple principle that buyers have a right to know what they are buying, and sellers have an obligation to be honest about what they are selling. It’s called D-I-S-C-L-O-S-U-R-E.

But now the FDA proposes to allow meat products of cloned animals to be sold without so much as a “oh, by the way,” let alone without so much as a “by your leave.” Outrageous!

I don’t give, you should pardon the expression, a pig’s behind how many studies have been done or to what extent the studies have shown that meat products from cloned animals, or the offspring of cloned animals, are safe for human consumption. Despite what Mr. Conko variously asserts and implies, the fundamental fact is that this is still new science, only a decade old, and as we have seen time and again sometimes even very small amounts of substances introduced into the body can have serious deleterious health consequences over the course of years…and it is only the passage of time which can reveal that. I want, I demand, to know what it is I am putting in my mouth, and more important what is going into the mouths of my children and grandchildren. Is that too much to ask? If so, then the Age of Big Brother really has arrived.

Write your members of Congress. Tell them, and in no uncertain terms: No, dammit, you are not going to shove any such irrational, anti-consumer, failure-to-fully-disclose legislation down our throats…and if you even attempt it then it will be over the dead, rotting carcass of your political career.
C. Vail

TAKING MEASURE
Re: The Prowler’s Super Tuesday Tax Measures:

A couple of observations if I might, please. First, may I say that I sincerely hope that every tax increase on the ballot in California on Super Tuesday passes. I also hope that more tax increases are on the ballot and pass in November. Further, if there are any government expansion or nanny state measures on the ballot now or later, I hope that they pass also. It would be fine with me if Ahhhhnold removed the sham and re-registered as a Dem, he is already more liberal that Joe Lieberman. The citizens of California have brought this situation on themselves. The bad part is that it so often fans out to the rest of the country. California experiments and new discoveries have been ruining the public schools for more than 50 years. It would, however, help if the Feds could actually build the border fence along the eastern border of California, Oregon, and Washington, so as to stop the continued movement of Left Coast crazies to what used to be sensible states, like Colorado, and Wyoming, and Montana, etc. California is a prime example of people getting exactly what they asked for. As a matter of fact, why not just cede California to Mexico as the La Raza people are clamoring for. Maybe then we could convince all the illegal aliens from Mexico to move to California.

Secondly, your report regarding the Romney people playing hard ball politics with Martinez and Crist in Florida. Thank you. That indicates to me that the Romney folks have finally learned how the game of politics is played. It gives me some hope for a Romney vs. Billary race. I have been complaining for over 25 years that the GOP either didn’t know how to play the political game, or that they were so wimpish that they refused to really compete to win. The two Bushes are, in my opinion, the worst at wimping out when the Dems say “Boo” to them. If Mitt wants to be POTUS then he needs to man up and take out the sharp knives against Huckleberry Hound and Rudy G also. I guarantee that Rudy G knows exactly how to play this kind of bare knuckles game, and will do so in a New York minute.

Finally, the Jesuits. Is any awake individual surprised by the decision taken by St. Louis University and its Jesuit masters. Does anyone seriously think that a different decision would have been reached at Georgetown Univ., or Boston Coll., or Loyola. Truthfully, I would bet that the exact same decision would be reached at Notre Dame. The Jesuits are less Roman Catholic (Rome) obedient than the Southern Baptists. Most Baptists had, and have, more respect for the last two Popes than the Jesuit order, not that the American Catholic Bishops Conference is much better. Probably the only reason that it was even reported as widely as it was is because this is a slow sports news cycle until the Super Bowl hype kicks into high gear the middle of next week.
Ken Shreve
From newly Democratic New Hampshire

Coach Majerus sought permission from St. Louis University to speak at a Hillary Clinton rally. Someone in Hillary’s campaign obviously knew of Majerus’s stance on abortion. Let’s not forget the canned questions from her previous rallies. Questioned about his pro-choice beliefs, Majerus publicly revealed he was a pro-abort. Majerus is an employee of St. Louis University. A Jesuit institution. Unfortunately, there are few Jesuit universities that bear any resemblance to a Catholic institution.

So, it will not and does not surprise me that the university would reply, “He’s not a theology or philosophy teacher,” says a Jesuit instructor at the school. “Coach Rick doesn’t have to adhere to Vatican policies in that regard. This was free speech. We couldn’t stop him, nor would we.”

Coach Majerus will get off with a slap on the hand. I commend Archbishop Burke for speaking so forcefully. I ask, do the Jesuits have to answer to the Archbishop?
Clasina Segura
New Iberia, Louisiana

A FREE RIDE
Re: Jeff Emanuel’s Arnold’s Gray Days:

I just got around to reading Jeff Emanuel’s article on Arnold and California.

This to me represents their basic problem; visiting the capitol building a couple of years ago during their “budget crises” just after Arnold became governor, my wife and I noticed two things. One was that every single publication in the building was printed in about two dozen languages. The other was that the capitol building had paid elevator operators sitting in them to take you up and down three floors.

I openly commented to my wife in front of the nice lady (I inquired as whether she was paid or a volunteer) that it was no wonder they were having budget problems.
Greg Barnard
Franklin, Tennessee

I READ GOOD, TOO
Re: Chris Kachouroff’s letter (under “Honor at War”) in Reader Mail’s Days of Reckoning:

At first it was annoying but now it is amusing when the “Ron Paulies” out there proudly tell us that they really know what America should do because they “read the Constitution.” From this statement, conservatives can glean two things: 1.) The Ron Paulies know how to read. 2.) Ron Paulies read more than the comics section in the newspaper.

I think it is fine Ron Paul advances his views in the public arena; but when is someone going to tell him that he does not own the Constitution. Other loyal Americans also have read the founding document. They may be mistaken or have failed to grasp the spirit beyond the letter; but that doesn’t make them ignorant or disingenuous. At least give other people some credit.
Mike Dooley
Indianapolis, Indiana

To those who support Ron Paul, the definition of Victory in Iraq has not changed. A free, stable democracy in control of itself and ready to prosper. The purpose of our military in foreign nations has not changed for 50 years. To project power and ensure our security.

Please, do not get me wrong. There are a lot of things I like about Ron Paul. He’s got strong Libertarian ideals, and he’s shown the honor to stand beside those ideals and pull back our government and get it out of our lives. I will support him, and anyone else who will help him, in this endeavor.

Here is where I disagree, strongly, with Rep. Paul. Ron Paul wants to return to a semi-isolationist policy of foreign affairs. When it comes to monetary affairs, he might just be right. When it comes to military and security affairs he is dead wrong. Isolationism meant being pulled into two world wars that could have been avoided with strong foreign policy and a proper presence in Europe. We decided that we wouldn’t bother trouble unless trouble bothered us. But the simple reality of the world is that trouble always comes to bother. It’s a shame to think that it took millions dead in two massive wars in Europe for American politicians to realize this. It is more of a shame to think that 60 years later, we can still have people wondering around thinking that a return to that nineteenth century policy is a good idea.

You cannot build a wall so high that it cannot be overcome. You cannot build it so thick that it cannot be taken down. Isolationist defense does not work. Security comes at the cost of money, lives, and most importantly, constant vigilance….
Charles Campbell

BORN TO BE WILD
Re: Judah Friedman’s The Redistribution of SWAG:

Let me provide a SWAG (Silly Wild A$$ Guess) that Judah’s suggestion will fall on deaf ears. The “gifted ones” won’t give up anything. It’s the suffering, you know.

BTW, if you’re ever in Utah during motorcycle riding weather (not sure there will be any this year), be sure to take the road past Sundance. Not to see Sundance, of course, but some of those turns are wicked!
Karl F. Auerbach
Eden, Utah

Sign up to receive our latest updates! Register


By submitting this form, you are consenting to receive marketing emails from: The American Spectator, 122 S Royal Street, Alexandria, VA, 22314, http://spectator.org. You can revoke your consent to receive emails at any time by using the SafeUnsubscribe® link, found at the bottom of every email. Emails are serviced by Constant Contact

Be a Free Market Loving Patriot. Subscribe Today!