FIGHT FIRE WITH FIRE
Re: Philip Klein’s Hillary Slayer:
Philip Klein has it right about Giuliani — he is the guy to beat Hillary. But I have this nagging little problem: I still haven’t heard his views on immigration reform and closing the borders down tight. Let me rephrase that. I don’t like his permuting views on immigration and open borders. He is waffling like Mitt Romney on abortion or John McCain on being Episcopalian/Baptist — and that bothers me.
— Judy Beumler
As a pro-lifer, I support Rudy Giuliani for President. Why? Not because his position is the purest, nor because I despair of the cause but simply because I believe his promise to reduce the number of abortions will be kept if he is elected.
We have had pro-life presidents including my favorite, Reagan. However, not much has been achieved because pro-life just isn’t a priority for the Republican Party. Pro-life rhetoric is simply a requirement to get the conservative vote not an action item.
I support Guiliani because of national defense issues. I wish he were pro-life because he has the integrity that, if elected, he would implement a pro-life agenda. Achievement of his limited pro-life agenda would ace all the rhetoric of Thompson and the others.
— M. Scholz
Tijeras, New Mexico
Philip Klein’s “Hillary Slayer” was a joy to read; I wish two things. One, that I had been able to listen to Giuliani take on the NYT and Clinton (reading it in TAS is a good second). Two, that Britain had a ballsy conservative like him to take on the rabble presently ruining that country. Perhaps a Giuliani-Thompson ticket is the thing. Good on you Rudy; what a ballsy guy you are.
— G. Constable
While the Democrats have been recklessly irresponsible with their intellectually dishonest positions on the Iraq war, Republican “leaders” have been cravenly AWOL. President Bush has been steadfast, but his new tone and uninspiring war-time rhetoric have given cowards of all political stripes the courage to crawl out from beneath their rocks and spew their skewed polemics, free from consequences or retaliation.
Senators Warner and Hagel are departing, with nothing to show but a legacy of dedicated service to their massive egos. For the tap dancing, bathroom lothario, Senator Craig, what are America’s problems compared to the retention of his senate seat? And then there’s Rudy; the Republican some at TAS just love to hate. So the real question here becomes, if, indeed, World War IV is in full throat, who among the favorites has the guts, grit, eloquence, and sense of national purpose to finish this war? I suppose you can ask the troop loving, MoveOn beholding, lifelong Yankee fan from Chicago, whose never set foot in Yankee stadium, or, perhaps, you might ask the man who walked into those Twin Towers as the inferno raged around him.
— Anthony DiPentima
One of the factors recommending Rudy Giuliani is the facial trend he represents and will send forward. At the start of our Republic, Presidents generally had flowing hair, sans wigs. They were models of Republican honesty, plain and manly. When the republic’s survival was at stake, President Lincoln begat the beard, first as a disguise to reach his Inauguration, then in the manner of a serious Biblical Quest. Nearly all the succeeding Presidents maintained the mane, with a few mustached exceptions like Arthur, TR and Taft. This was the rough work of civilizing a continent.
With Wilson, America enjoyed the maturity of the academic pursuit of a more just society. Gone were the beards, sideburns and moustaches of a rougher-hewn era. The Presidents wore fedoras and spoke reason to the nation via radio and TV. With Kennedy, the era of vitality and action was reborn, but with the hatless image of youth. Even aged Presidents as Reagan appeared youthful and vital next to wrapped commissars of the Kremlin.
In 2008, we enter the era of executive competence so evident in Mayor Giuliani’s extensive resume. Perhaps his most lasting imagery, beyond the dust mask on 9/11, was forsaking the childish comb-over of his latter years for the straight open pate of fortitude and experience. Pass on the trendy hairdress of Ms Clinton. This is the look of power in our time, not withery bald like Ike or McCain but dynamic and forceful like the modern CEO. This is the American Standard Bearer.
— Timothy P. O’Neill
Pompano Beach, Florida
Rudy was impressive, Mr. Klein. He does have a knack. After all, with the Clintons, he’s “taking on the mob,” again.
— Mike Showalter
As a conservative, I have trouble with Giuliani on abortion, homosexual marriage, and gun control, but his combativeness and record make him a very attractive Presidential candidate in the Reagan and Bush 43 mold. A Thompson-Giuliani or Giuliani-Thompson ticket would be very appealing and blessed with an ability to communicate without concern for the Democratic propaganda machine or what is euphemistically called the mainstream media.
For all those conservatives who prattled on about the “conservative” blue-dog Democrats in 2006 where were they in defending General Petraeus against the scurrilous attacks of their liberal peers? I didn’t see political opportunist Jim Webb or pseudo military supporter Ike Skelton taking on Mrs. Bill Clinton, the NY “Slimes” or MoveOn.org. So much for “conservative” blue-dog Democrats they’re as useless as tits on a boar hog.
As for the President’s “low approval ratings” he’s more popular than Congress and the media so maybe its time conservatives in the media quit pandering to their liberal colleagues and parroting their inane dribble about poll numbers. The simple truth is statesmen lead while feckless politicians worry about poll numbers and legacies. When did so many conservative journalists morph into disciples of Bill Clinton?
— Michael Tomlinson
Jacksonville, North Carolina
Kudos for an excellent column. This past week has focused my own choice among Republican candidates, and I agree with your conclusions.
Giuliani is the only Republican candidate with the ruthlessness required to defeat the MSM and the Clinton machine. He is a flawed candidate, but better than Hillary. Hillary must be stopped at all costs. The country can’t afford her!
— R. Goodson
Vero Beach, Florida
An inconvenient Truth, Philip Klein doesn’t check facts. His article about Rudy says the NYT buckled under pressure and gave him the same discounted rate that MoveOn.org did. Well, duh…. Anyone can get that rate if they adhere to the NYT’s regulations for that type of advertising. I realize that you are only looking to further the Conservative Cause, and do not want to be troubled by getting tiny little things like facts getting in the way. But if you are going to say it out there like this, you should make sure it’s true. This wasn’t and Philip Klein was lazy in writing this piece.
— Phil Ostrand
GO WEST, DEMOCRATS
Re: Liz Mair’s The Democrats’s Mountain West Offense:
The Spectator is pushing hard for Rudy this morning. But before this Westerner votes for him, she wants to hear his views on wide open borders and unfettered immigration, please.
— Judy Beumler
Trends in the West, where Democrats are winning some races, reveals how far they must go to portray themselves as something other than Democrats to win. Ken Salazar played up his rags to riches “poor boy” story more than his solidly liberal Democrat credentials to win a narrow Senate victory in 2004. Governor Schweitzer had to abandon traditional Democrat positions on guns and taxes to get elected — if he ever becomes a “good” Democrat he’s toast. John Tester, an organic farmer or “pork” recipient, benefited from the conservative crack-up as did all Democrats in 2006. Watching Bill Richardson as he gets wackier and wackier to win votes for the party’s Presidential nomination speaks volumes about who Democrats really are. Regardless of their chameleon like natures Democrats ultimately support higher taxes, pork barrel spending, gun grabbing, expansion of the Federal bureaucracy and betraying the US to its foreign enemies as is illustrated by the current Democrat Congress led by westerner Harry “Terrorist Appeaser” Reid.
To see what Democrats have planned for America one need only look to the overtaxed, aging and decaying Northeast or northern Virginia to see how like rats and roaches they ruin the areas they infest.
— Michael Tomlinson
Jacksonville, North Carolina
Sadly, natives of the Mountain West states you mention have not changed their politics. They have just found themselves outnumbered by the latest manifestation of carpetbaggers.
The change in these states have been brought about by the influx of blue voters from other less conservative states, mostly California. These people want to live in the beautiful mountains, and don’t want anyone else to be able to make a traditional living there. Ranching, mining coal, mining oil, shale, etc.? All these things are bad for the ENVIRONMENT!
The fact these occupations might be good for the country as a whole never enters the pea-sized brains of these latecomers to the American West.
— R. Goodson
Vero Beach, Florida
FREEDOM FROM’S ANOTHER WORD
Re: Joseph M. Knippenberg’s Sweet Land of What?:
I believe the problem described by Mr. Knippenberg is due to the change in understanding of what our Constitution and Declaration provide us. In both cases, the documents specify freedom of action and/or forbidding the abridgement of same. Too many have confused concepts of “freedom OF speech” with “freedom FROM speech.” As far as the Fairness Doctrine goes, we see this demonstrated in politicians and political groups insisting that people should be free from opinions with which they disagree, or that they find offensive. Implementation of the FD won’t result in more liberal positions being heard (freedom OF speech) but rather fewer conservatives positions being heard (freedom FROM speech).
But then, this isn’t unique. Even the late Norman Rockwell, among others, advocated concepts such as “freedom from want.” That doesn’t denote freedom of action; it dictates an obligation on others to provide something for nothing.
To repeat: one is freedom of action; the other is simply coercion. When will people learn?
— Karl F. Auerbach
DARK SIDE OF THE MOON
Re: James Bowman’s In the Shadow of the Moon:
James Bowman writing about In the Shadow of the Moon quotes astronaut Dave Scott as saying that in science fiction stories about the moon landing “I don’t think any of them imagined the whole world
watching on TV.”
Perhaps not, but science fiction author Murray Leinster imagined the possibility of planetary and stellar exploration as a prime time live media advertising extravaganza in his 1954 novel Operation: Outer Space.
Full text here.
— Harry M. Kriz
TARE-ING INTO MISSIONARIES
Re: Mark Tooley’s Goodbye to American Christendom:
That should be “wheat and tares” not “wheat and tears.”
Tare: “a noxious weed, probably the darnel.” Reference: dictionary.com
The term “tares” is used seven times in Matthew, Chapter 13 (KJV). Example (verse 25): But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.
BTW, I have no regard for the opinions of the left-wingers who compose “Sojourners.”
— David Shoup
Fort Gordon, Georgia
One question to Mark Tooley: Was there ever a Christendom in America, with luminaries such as Thomas Jefferson and Bill Clinton fornicating, as did many of the famous pastors such as Jim Baker and Jimmy Swaggart? The only conservatism that the so-called American Christians stick to is worship of white skin color, marrying within one’s race in the name of Christianity and trying to abide racial purity…beyond that there is no conservatism in America.
Personally I would like to see American missionaries banned from developing countries, particularly the white American missionaries.