Strike Two - The American Spectator | USA News and Politics
Strike Two

Re: Paul Beston’s Steroids and the Culture of Narcissism:

Senator Mitchell’s Report told us nothing we, the public, didn’t already know. That it included names made it salacious. The heroes are just like us, see?

Baseball is their business, their livelihoods, and they are in competition with each other to stay in business. That they would avail themselves of anything and everything to assure they retain their positions is not news. People in business do it everyday.

That players earn fantastic sums of money is not what separates them from the public that worships their records and achievements. Entertainers in every other venue earn sums over long careers far greater than do any one player in a career lasting but a few years. That the playing field, no pun intended, is unlevel is more the issue. There’s not a sandlot player alive who hasn’t thought, “If I had done steroids, maybe I could have made it to The Bigs, too.”

This was not mentioned in the column. The fans respect achievement, but not if the ability to achieve is tilted towards those whose talents are augmented artificially.
Laney Bormel
Parkton, Maryland

George Mitchell used to be a Senator.

I didn’t trust him then, and I don’t trust him now.
Dan Martin
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Re: John Tabin’s Fight Club Irregulars:

A comment, if I may, regarding Mr. Tabin’s analysis of Mr. Romney. An argument can be made that President Bush is too combative, too quick to use the American military. I happen to think that he was right in taking down Sadaam, but the opposite argument can, at least, be made. With Mr. Romney, I worry that he will depend on negotiation, on the MBA approach, if you will, for entirely too long before doing what is right and inserting our military. It is good not to be too quick on the trigger, but if one draws one’s weapon but refuses to pull the trigger at all, one is liable to wake up dead.
Ken Shreve

Re: Jeffrey Lord’s Huckabee Attacking Reaganonomics:

I suppose that it is true that some people simply cannot handle success! Since his sudden rise in the polls and becoming a new “front runner,” Mike Huckabee has made misstep after misstep. His record on pardons as governor of Arkansas is shameful, his attack on Rush Limbaugh as a mouthpiece for the Beltway was puzzling, and now he seems to think that supply side economics represents greed. This guy just doesn’t know when to quit, does he?

There was a time when I was intrigued by Huckabee and his promise, but as I looked into his record I had to back away from him. It seems now that Huckabee is trying to drive supporters away…and he may end up doing a very good job of that. If he wants to get back in the good graces of the GOP conservative base, he has, as Ricky Ricardo used to say, “a lot of ‘splainin to do!”
Eric Edwards
Walnut Cove, North Carolina

Please tell me; was Mr. Lord born yesterday?

Huckabee has been making these socialistic class-warfare comments since he began his run for the presidency (and probably long before although nobody noticed or cared).

It is amazing that this has only now come to Mr. Lord’s attention.
Les Arbo
Daphne, Alabama

Friday, TAS had three articles that had messages for Governor Huckabee; two were directly about The Smilin’ Preacher from Hope — “Huck and the Dapper”; “Huckabee Attacking Reaganomics” — and one holds a lesson for him: “Evergreen Grudge Match.”

Yes, Governor Huckabee is a likeable person and has a certain charm about him, but even his greatest nemeses will concede the same about another former governor from Arkansas. Sadly, the similarities don’t end there. Just as the Boy President left behind a stink of hints, allegations, and things left unsaid, so it is with The Impossibly Possible Preacher President. Add a love of taxes and the picture becomes even clearer: A Huckabee presidency would look an awful (emphasis on awful) lot like the Clinton presidency, minus the cigars and sexual liaisons.

Boy Clinton had a real, not RINO, congress to hold his feet to the fire on many issues. The congress was often able to stymie the Clinton tax increases, or at least lessen their impact on the economy. A Huckabee administration will likely have a Democratic dominated congress (though the Dems seem eager to shoot themselves in the foot on a regular basis). With a spendthrift congress eager to “redistribute wealth,” Huckabee and company would not only continue the economic wrongheaded largess of the current administration, they would create a tax burden that would hobble the American and world economies for years to come.

Do I like Mike? Sure, he would be a charming dinner guest, but I don’t want to put him in charge of my budgets. America will be better off with a president who is neither from Hope or named Clinton.
Ira M. Kessel
Rochester, New York

Re: Lawrence Henry’s Huck and the Dapper:

Right again! Mr. Henry’s article happens to hit the nail smack on. There is the people factor that all the liberal press, the pundits, and others who make Kings, forget. The people have now risen above polls and purposes and controls, and they like who they like. Movers and shapers aside, it cannot be explained.

And as for Huckabee, Mr. Henry’s right, Baptist Preachers have to make it with their congregation and become a voice for that group, or they hit the road. I can speak to this from 50+ years of being a Baptist.

Now, to a couple points not made. I know folks in the press are caterwauling over his illegal aliens policies, etc. Heck, til the people rose up and SPOKE loudly this summer, (I know, as I was one who called and said to Congress repeatedly, as they were tone deaf, this isn’t what my son fights for), all politicians did the same as Huckabee. They caved in and let illegals in. Why won’t anyone say this? It was a commonality of all. Now that the people has made it pretty darned clear we won’t do this, repeatedly, I might add, anyone who represents us will have to realize they better be on track over this.

I won’t get into Huckabee’s prisoner issues. I don’t know much about it. I am just sitting back here on the Tangle-T watching and praying the right man comes into office. My son, nearly 29, a new father, has aged 10 years, but is still headed back [to Iraq], because he comes from ancestors that know you stay with the job til it is done, and this may be a long while before we get it done, yet, he does NOT give up. If you put someone in the Oval Office who doesn’t get terrorism, does not respect the military, not only will you see a mass fleeing from the military (they will not serve a fool, nor give their lives for idiots), and the terrorists will win because we capitulated, and we will be ruled by anarchists, or worse, Islamists.

There is a reckoning coming, my dear old Daddy whispered to me recently. At 88 he nears his Heavenly Father, but his sight is still clear and clean enough here on earth to know that as a country, as a whole, we have acted in some pretty ungodly ways that we will answer for.

So, I am just praying for an honorable man, a man of God’s choosing, someone who has that great sight to look further ahead, not be deterred by rattling voices of shame and stupidity of those who don’t get it, and one who loves God.

I just pray. The election isn’t here and the sorting hasn’t commenced. The people haven’t spoken yet.
Bev Gunn
East Texas Rancher

I agree with Mr. Henry. Huckabee does come across as “genuinely nice, charming and engaging.” Reminds me a bit of Gomer Pyle…
Jack Hughes
Chicago, Illinois

I am a Baptist and I can only pray Huckabee will NOT be elected just because he is a preacher. Look at his record, he has not seen a tax he does not like, or an illegal immigrant. This man could become the Republicans’ Jimmy Carter. He may be the nicest person you will ever meet, but that is not what we need in a President.
Elaine Kyle

Re: Eric Earling’s Evergreen Grudge Match:

Please remember that Gregoire raised tax after tax immediately after taking power. I hope Washington voters have not forgotten.
Merlin Perkins

Re: George H. Wittman’s Death of a Queen:

I’m a little at a loss over media coverage of this admittedly tragic incident. Somehow I didn’t have the impression that Benazir Bhutto was an ally of the USA, at least in the way Musharraf came across as an ally. Am I missing something?
Robert Nowall
Cape Coral, Florida

Benazir: all perfumed on the outside, exuding the stench of corruption from within.

This Bhutto woman stood accused, by her very own niece, of murdering her youngest brother. This smiling educated woman cheered on suicide bombings in Israel, hobnobbed with Yasser Arafat and professed a strong belief in democracy while running a corrupt political machine. Her father was corrupt, her husband known as Mr. Ten-Percent for demanding graft, and Benazir herself faced corruption charges and fled Pakistan ahead of the mob.

Why did she go back? Perhaps she wanted to become the Indira Ghandi of Pakistan. Perhaps she believed the US State Department that Benazir would be the voice of moderation and modernism in an Islamic hinterland. Perhaps the radicalization of Pakistan, so very different today than when she ruled as Prime Minister, radicalized her, too, as a Shahid martyr.

She knew full well that the Mullahs would no longer permit a woman to rule over men. It sets a bad example at home in the mud hut. She understood her death would lead to anarchy and possible takeover by radical Islamist elements in Pakistan. Perhaps she viewed her shahid death as a way of preserving and protecting her family’s fortune and standing in Sindh province. What better way to cleanse oneself of the stench of corruption than by dying for democracy. Though everyone not connected with the US State Department and Diplomatic Corps knows that developing a democracy in any Islamic backwater has a much smaller chance of success than communism among Russian peasants.
Wolf Terner
Fair Lawn, New Jersey

I think it is time to write in Powell for the Republican nominee. He got to the top of the military pyramid by being a diplomat as well as a soldier. With Pakistan et al going to hell in a hand basket it is time to get someone whose has the ability to see both sides and then make a rational decision. Hillary has too much ego. This has nothing to do with her sex and everything to do with her. I will write in Powell when I go to the polls.
a grateful reader

Re: Eric Edwards’ letter (under “Preacher Don’t Politick”) in Reader Mail’s Preach It:

I often wonder why perfectly sensible folks seem to ignore perfectly sensible reasons for other people’s behavior in certain situations. I believe that I perceive two perfectly sensible reasons why Mr. Graham took the road that he did with regards to our politicians.

First, it is so very much easier to convince someone to come around to your view, if you have not first made him/her angry. Mr. Graham, I would submit, was interested in the souls of the various politicians, not necessarily their policy on a particular issue. One can argue that, if you can get their soul right, the preferred policies will follow as a consequence. If you can convince a man of the rightness, as well as the holiness, of Jesus, if you can get the person to admit to the teachings of the Christ, then that person will just naturally be inclined to the pro-life cause. This works so much better than getting in their face and screaming that they are a murderer. The same can be said about other issues besides the pro-life cause.

It is my understanding that Mr. Graham urged each and every politician that he counseled to hew to the moral path, and to make decisions that reflected the teachings of our Lord and Saviour, as to kindness, generosity, humanity, etc. It is my understanding that Mr. Graham did not much get into minutia of geo-political world politics with them. His focus was not on this world, but the next one.

Secondly, Mr. Graham took his evangelism to the four corners of the globe, to billions of people in hundreds of lands. That is not a small undertaking. It often helps to have important people in your corner to lend a hand through the bureaucratic red tape, the inherent hostility of dictators and tyrants, etc. Think back to when Mr. Graham took his preaching to the Soviet Union several decades ago, during the height of the Cold War. Just try to imagine the snags and barriers he had to surmount to get the group in the country, to secure a venue, to get the translators, to get the permissions for a public gathering of a large crowd, and on and on. All this against a backdrop of an at least covertly hostile government, in a closed society, with a dedicated dictator. Now try to envision the amount of help that a friendly American president might be able to give, a friendly or at least neutral Secretary General of the UN, the help of friendly leader of a foreign country that has good relations with the USSR. You could insert the name of many countries in the scenario, countries in Africa, countries in Asia, India, the Middle East, etc.

I would propose that Mr. Graham having a “friend” in the White House provided assistance to his ministry in ways much too numerous to count and too diverse to be easily imagined. When one has a good, moral, Godly purpose to fulfill in ones life, confrontation is not always the best way to achieve that purpose, especially bare knuckles confrontation that questions the very core principles of someone else’s life. Yes, confrontation is sometimes necessary, but not always. I believe that Mr. Graham truly knew when confrontation was required and when a more gentle and agreeable approach was required. His success for well over 50 years of Christian ministry bespeaks a man that was in tune with what God wished him to do.
Ken Shreve

Re: Robert Stacy McCain’s Paul Krugman’s Fairy Tale:

It’s interesting that most of the job losses of the past number of years have occurred in industries which are unionized. Hmmmm. I wonder why?
Gerry Kendall

Re: Jeremy Lott’s Bad Faith Bestseller:

Thanks for “Bad Faith Bestseller” by Jeremy Lott. I have another thought about why Hitchens’s book sold well: I think a lot of Christians bought it. My reasoning for saying that is I’ve noticed a revival of interest in apologetics among evangelicals and, as a result, they’re more interested in understanding what opponents have to say so that they can counter their arguments. Personally, I encourage other Christians to read as much as they can stomach from atheists and other opponents because I have found few things that build my faith as much as knowing how amazingly weak the arguments of opponents are.
Roger D. McKinney
Broken Arrow, Oklahoma

Re: R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.’s Permanently Wrong:

I know you love to call Hillary Bruno, but I have a much more appropriate moniker for her. Gorgon who was one of the three sisters who had snakes for hair is identified by Websters Dictionary as ugly, terrifying and repulsive. What better description can you get of a she-devil?
Mary Lou Rose

Sign Up to receive Our Latest Updates! Register

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:

Be a Free Market Loving Patriot. Subscribe Today!