LIBERALISM AT THE OASIS
Re: Jennifer Rubin’s What Are We Looking For?:
With all due respect:
I thought The American Spectator was an oasis of media for conservatives, but it has recently become quite liberal. Yesterday an article on “Conservatives for Clinton,” now this? Everything you site in this article is nothing but fake scandals created by the Democrats and their Left-wing partners in the Media.
You site Katrina. Ok, that was a NATURAL disaster. Bush actually was preemptive on that storm. It was Governor Blanco that balked and Mayor Nagin (both Democrats) that didn’t carry out the evacuation plan. Moreover, it was corrupt local Democrats that spent the levy money elsewhere for years. Also, if the majority of the black population was not on some liberal government entitlement program then they would have the means to get out AND wouldn’t be waiting, in danger, for their welfare check (remember the storm hit right before the 1st of the month, payday).
Walter Reed is yet another example of the failures of bureaucracies. Should Bush have done more to fix these bloated agencies? Yes, but he tried to start with Social Security and the Left screamed bloody murder! Does the next President have to communicate the need for such change? Yes, and Fred Thompson (if he runs) is the only one that has attempted to do so, when he was in the Senate.
U.S. Attorney “scandal” is nothing more than Democrats criminalizing politics. Clinton fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys when he took office. How can you not know that?
John McCain is a liberal that calls himself a Republican. He will never win the Republican nomination for that reason. Let me explain something to you, since, even though you write for a conservative website/newsletter, you don’t know. The Republican “base” is made up of conservatives. Besides our principles, we are educated on what made this country great. And that is the Constitution, interpreted through its original intent. John McCain has done more to trample the First amendment then Political Correctness has. Moreover, he’s a lapdog for the Liberal Media, which is nothing but a bunch of left-wing, big government types. “Uniter”? Are you kidding me? That attitude is what got Bush in so much trouble, as all these Clinton holdovers have done everything to undermine his Presidency.
I can go on forever, but I’ll sum it up for you. Bush’s poll numbers are low because Democrats hate him (no big surprise) and because he has not been a true conservative. He’s good on some things (tax cuts, national security) but awful on others (spending, immigration). However, at least he’s not a child like Bill Clinton.
The next President needs to roll back and fix all the problems that we face as a result of the last century of liberalism. Reagan started it, someone needs to finish it.
— Daniel Scouler
Editor’s Note: Regarding Republicans for Clinton?, perhaps Mr. Scouler should reread the headline — and read the piece.
THE CRACK-UP CONTINUES
Re: Jay D. Homnick’s The Bushed Presidency:
Mr. Homnick’s “The Bushed Presidency” chastises disaffected conservatives like myself for throwing in the towel on George Bush. Well, I proudly plead guilty as charged. But, in mitigation, all should be honest about why the President sees so many conservatives running away from him. He shunned them.
Where to start? Maybe “comprehensive immigration reform.” While all informed voters knew this was the President’s position prior to the 2000 election, things changed a wee bit on 9/11. Since that attack the President has knowingly presided over a regime of sham immigration “enforcement” thus endangering the citizens of this country, and insulted good Americans who object to unfettered alien entry by smearing them as vigilantes. He thus is failing one of his principal duties–the protection of the American people.
The Middle East. Seems as if every other week the President is sending Secretary Rice to talk and pose for photos with some terrorist-enabling kleptocrat in that region of the world while trying to find a way to funnel our money directly to the Palestinian people, the same people who voted for Hamas, a ruthless terrorist bunch so designated by the President. Let them pound sand while they reconsider their future electoral choices.
Iran. Is not Britain our loyal ally in Iraq? Were not her sailors and marines recently captured in Iraqi waters and held by the terrorist, nuclear bomb-developing Iran for full propaganda exploitation? I understand Britain soiled her undergarments demonstrating fully her cowardice, but does not America come to the defense of our allies any longer? Why are significant portions of Iran not smoldering ruins at present? Why, instead, did the President authorize the release of Iranian “diplomats” captured in Iraq?
Kofi Annan. Our President recently toasted the corrupt SOB as a “great” man.
AG Gonzales. While I despise the Democrat witch-hunt, Gonzales has recently revealed himself as the most inept leader in the Bush administration. With the exception of Janet “Burn Innocent Americans” Reno, our current AG is one of the most embarrassing in living memory and no conservative should ever feel compelled to defend a Republican president who, out of misplaced loyalty, will not clean house and insist on competency.
No Child Left Behind, tax collectors on your heels. Expanded entitlements and out-of-control government spending for 6 years with not a single veto threat. IRS on your heels.
Harriet Miers. Only due to open conservative defiance of the President do we now enjoy Roberts and Alito as Supreme Court justices.
In summary, conservatives initially supported President Bush with enthusiasm because he said and did some of the things we like (tax cuts, taking out Saddam, killing terrorists, etc.). Six years later, the President’s record speaks for itself and, on balance, it is a decidedly mixed bag. Conservative principles have not changed. Turns out President Bush is not conservative. I cannot understand why Mr. Homnick has difficulty understanding why conservatives are not happy. In politics, if you don’t deliver what you promise or suggest, then voter support wanes. President Bush has failed to deliver. His problem, not mine. Maybe Mr. Homnick should focus on the real cause of the President’s problem, his betrayal of conservatives.
— Dave Mills
Why am I not surprised at the rats leaving the floundering ship of the Bush Presidency? Fair weather friends indeed. Politicians out to save their own necks with no regard for loyalty to their boss. If the dems have their way…I guess he will be doing the “perp walk” next. If I were him I would be glad to be out of DC at the end of the term since it’s the most backstabbing place on the planet. Its sort of like Iraq…who you think is your friend is really your enemy.
— J. Sherrill
Ah yes, why rely on the empty wind of politicians’ sound bites when we can do quite all right with the empty wind of Christopher Orlet. It’s nice that you like Mr. Tribe’s individual rights position when it fits so neatly with your political view, but you might want to consider how that wind might blow on some of your other issues. You would do well to read the work of Robert Bork, who does not agree with Tribe’s interpretation, before you do cartwheels …
— Jason Davis
THE SAFETY OF THE SECOND
Re: Christopher Orlet’s The About-Face on Guns:
Chris Orlet paints an optimistic picture about gun rights. But there are many objective reasons to be pessimistic.
Larry Tribe may have decided that the Second Amendment not only means what it says, but also that it is worth being obeyed. But Tribe is a founding member of the “living” Constitution theory, which is a euphemism for the “dying” Constitution theory, because any document whose words and original intent are irrelevant is a dead document.
Democrats, the majority party in both houses of Congress, rule on the basis of individual irresponsibility and thus group [read that government] responsibility. There is no single greater individual responsibility than gun ownership, which is why the United States of America remains the undefeated champion of individual responsibility. But no matter what Trojan Horse candidates the Democrats may field and elect, the Democratic credo of individual irresponsibility is fundamentally antithetical to gun ownership. Democrats may keep the lid on their plans until the first Tuesday following the first Monday in November, but watch out Wednesday.
Add to that the hopeless demographic transition in these United States. Every year, every census, there are more big city big government denizens, and fewer rural minimum government stalwarts. Every year, there are fewer men (or women) who know which end of the barrel the round comes out, fewer men (or women) who have smelled that acrid-but-pleasing cloud of burnt powder, fewer men (or women) who have felt that hammer in the shoulder when firing pin strikes primer igniting smokeless driving round forward and buttstock backward.
Lock and load, it will get worse before it gets better.
— Frank Natoli
Newton, New Jersey
The legal reference and definition below are sent to you in response to your article of this date in The American Spectator — for which I offer my heartfelt thanks.
It also appears the most Americans are unaware that the National Guard was not established until 1919. It appears that too many public officials, editors and teachers are unaware of the legal opinion cited below.
LEGAL REFERENCE: WHETHER THE SECOND AMENDMENT SECURES AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT: The Second Amendment secures a right of individuals generally, not a right of States or a right restricted to persons serving in militias. (Office Of Legal Counsel, US Attorney General’s Office; August 24, 2004)
— James Pawlak
Remember Robert A. Heinlein’s observation: “An armed society is a polite society.”
— John Gridley
SHOOTOUT OVER IRAQ
Re: R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.’s Lost Over Iraq:
Aymin Zawahiri declares that the Democratic bill calling for the troops to withdraw from Iraq is proof that America has already lost the war. But he also wishes that we remain in Iraq so that more American lives will be lost (and money spent, adding further to our burgeoning national debt). Apparently, Zawahiri doesn’t have much anxiety about the surge changing the fundamentals of the situation in Iraq. He appears to have and endless supply of “lunkheads.” Regardless of our course of action, Mr. Tyrrell’s article seems to indicate that Zawahiri is in a win-win situation. So, who is the more useful fool in this situation — Mr. Reid or President Bush?
I found Mr. Tyrrell’s article long on name calling and invective and short on useful analysis.
— Mike Roush
Bravo Zulu Mr. Tyrrell for a well-written piece. Sadly, the American people with the support of Bruce Bartlett “Huffington-conservatives” and Know-Nothing Buchananites are buying into Rev. Reid’s false religion. It looks like it will take an apocalyptic event of near Armageddon magnitude to get the arm chair commandoes to take the fight against Islamic imperialism seriously.
Also while Democrats did suffer in Presidential bids from the runs the story was significantly different in Congress where they dominated till the Gingrich Revolution of 1994 marginally changed things. Unfortunately, thanks to a public “suffering” from “war fatigue” (what a joke) and “lose to win” masochistic conservatives the Democrats may be on the road to another domination of Congress for 40 years. Remember even when Ronald Reagan swept the nation in two elections the Democrats gained seats in the House and retook the Senate with stunning majorities.
Finally, the Reverend Michael Tomlinson, U.S. military Chaplain, calls on Imam Ayman Zawahiri and his hellish swine to stand and fight like real men with the USMC. Let’s settle this with your best against our best in a standup gunfight and winner takes all. If Ayman and his pigs would do that we’d all being shouting Halleluiah at Ayman’s baptism.
— Michael Tomlinson
Jacksonville, North Carolina
No, neither I, nor most Americans, ever heard about Rev Z’s tirade. Because I was serving some politically incorrect adolescents over the weekend, I was dependent on the MSM. By the time the local Boy Scout camporee was over, the information pond was free of ripples. Thank you for exposing Mr Reid’s colleague’s appreciative comments to the light of day for a few more days!
— Thomas M. Mahany, MD, PhD
Re: Robert VerBruggen’s letter (under “New Color Barriers”) in Reader Mail’s Oxymoronic Clinton Conservatives:
“… two crucial points regarding the social science of racism.”
Mr. VerBruggen and other classic liberals pronounce the “science” of racism, in his comments specifically in the NBA. Interesting, but I don’t hear him or his ilk demanding racial balance in the sports area, again specifically in the NBA. Well I will, I DEMAND racial balance in professional basketball and want the racial mix of the players to match the society from which they come. From now on the racial mix enforced by the Federal Government department of Sports Tolerance Diversity Unit or STD’s, will assure that the NBA has the following racial mix: 18% Hispanic; 15% African American; 65% white and 2% other. This should settle the argument for good… behind enemy lines in Seattle. Right Mr. V? No? Oh, well then what is your point?
— Craig Sarver
I’m no scientist, but it seems to me Mr. VerBruggen’s “professionally devised test” is designed to produce exactly the results it received. Remember the old kids’ time-killer of trying to rub the top of your head with one hand and your belly with the other, each in an opposite direction? Practice this until you have it down pat. Now, change the direction in which each hand rubs. Most normal humans will find this challenging, to say the least.
Practice an activity using certain rules of performance until you are proficient. Change the rules of performance. It is a rare person (or lab mouse or circus animal or pet dog) who can immediately perform the changed activity with the proficiency of the original.
I have two questions for Mr. VerBruggen:
(1) What were the results when white students were first asked to pair black faces with positive words, and white faces with negative, and then had the associations reversed?
(2) What were the results when black students were first asked to pair white faces with positive words, and black faces with negative, and then had the associations reversed?
— Lee H
Re: George H. Wittman’s Intelligence Directors and Other Whiners:
Well-written article. Most people do not have the slightest idea of what a Secret Intelligence Service is all about or what it is supposed to do. Theoretically the CIA is expected to operate like the Israeli Mossad, or even beyond that; carrying out their jobs in secret, anonymously, not afraid to dirty their hands, or sometimes associating with the less savory members of someone’s society to obtain the information that is necessary to keep us out of trouble. I doubt that current operations even closely resemble what once was the OSS. In addition they have to have access to un-restricted funds, that cannot be scrutinized by people not having access to classified intelligence operations. There is no place for the political correctness that Congress introduced a few years ago. Appointing people to be in charge of such operations, is almost criminal and is equivalent to having an Army in the field be commanded by someone whose only expertise is the running of a day care center.
In addition, writing about these intelligence operations can be dangerous and costly. Someone smart on the other side may put two and two together, and make the right conclusions, and some agent’s life can be lost. Remember these are covert operations and should remain covert. It is the name of the game. No one went into it with the idea to make a name for themselves, and the “chiefs” of the operation should not be allowed to cash in on some deals.
NO UNILATERAL DISARMANMENT
Re: W. James Antle III’s Republicans for Clinton?:
For a Republican to concede the inevitability of defeat and pre-emptively give his/her vote away to the least objectionable candidate among the opposition is political apostasy of the worst sort. I can’t imagine any self-respecting Republican voter ever considering such a strategy. Never in all my years of following politics have I seen a better field of candidates running for president on the Republican side. The one who emerges victorious from this splendid group will most certainly be worthy of my vote in the general election. If the political winds bode ill and my man doesn’t make it, then so be it. At least the people have not spoken with a twisted tongue.
— J. Brick
Beaver Dam, Arizona
CHEVY VS. CORVETTE
Re: Eric Peters’s Why Toyota’s Number One:
Your article said the same things that I have been saying for twenty-five years. I want to tell you a true story that happened in 1985. I owned an auto body repair shop in Osceola, Indiana. A young lady, Judy, whom I had done body repairs for her family previously, brought me her new 1985 Chevy Celebrity to repair collision damage. While the car was being repaired she came into the shop to check on the progress of the repairs. She stood in the doorway into the shop area and started talking to me. She said, “Don, what is your opinion of my car?” “What do you mean?” I asked. “You know, how does it compare to the Nissan I had before?” I told her that I would rather not say anything about her car. “Please tell me what you think, I value your opinion.” “It’s a piece of sh*#,” I started to say, but I never finished the sentence. “That’s what I think too,” she replied. “It just seems junky.” “When the new 1986’s come out I’m going to trade this car in on a new Nissan.” Judy was only 21 years old at the time but she knew that she had bought junk. G.M. had lost her as a customer forever, even though her dad had been “a Chevy man” all his life. G.M. helped to create a lot of “Judys,” millions probably.
— Don Bennett
All Mr. Peters’ conclusions are sound. Nevertheless, Mr. Peters might have discussed the irony that GM retains the capability to produce a world-beater when it listens to its clients manifest in the Chevrolet Corvette. Reliable, efficient (27 mph on the highway), durable, cheap (compared to its competitors) to purchase and maintain, and an absolute screamer, the Corvette is effectively a supercar at a Cadillac price. Were GM to listen to all its clients with the acuity it applies to Corvette owners, GM would have maintained its 56%+ market share.
An ecstatic Corvette owner,
— Dave Stassel
In 1979 I graduated from college and purchased my first new car, a Toyota Celica GT; a red one.
What a car. I drove it for 12 years and put 120,000 miles on it. It had a black interior with no air conditioning and I lived in south Texas. It was an attempt to be both macho and frugal at the same time.
I had considered an American car, but only for a nanosecond as I was very aware of the snap, rattle, and pop that was typical of Chevys and Fords. In addition, the U.S. cars weren’t all that attractive; Ford, especially, used to have these huge fenders that made the tires look small and silly. Many of them were box-like carriages of boredom.
After moving to the Midwest in 1991, and tiring of my sun-hot seats, I bought another Celica, a 1991 model, and I drove it for another 12 years. Both cars were almost maintenance free. I loved them both.
But after all these years, driving around in a small, tight little car with uncomfortably shaped seats, I felt it was time to get a newer model. My first thought was a Toyota 4Runner but I realized that what I liked were the earlier mid-90’s models and the current models looked…well, unexceptionally just like the Ford Explorer; and it cost a bundle. I then started looking at Toyota cars. I found that they were the ugliest things I’d ever seen. Even the Lexus models were just plain drab. Honda, Acura, etc. all looked the same. All the foreign imports were incredibly boring. Everything was just smooth and round. No lines. No character. The only thing that was “special” about them were the headlights with their unique prisms, shapes and cut glass. The tail lights looked like pasted-on decals.
So I began to look at U.S. models and found a most beautiful car. A 2000 Chysler 300M. The car has character, styling and just looks great. Nice lines, comfortable seats, great sound system. I’ve noticed also that other Chrysler products look pretty good. There is a distinct styling in most all their models.
Yes, I notice the somewhat higher level of maintenance, but the car was less expensive to begin with so if you compare the occasional nuisance repair with the cost of a Toyota or Lexus, you can rationalize that it’s OK. I still believe that I’m a Toyota “fan” and that they are superior cars, engineering-wise. But ugly is as ugly looks.
Tom Wolfe once wrote a book called From Bauhaus to Our House in which he decried the attempt by “socialistic architects” to force mankind into unadorned boxes of glass and steel…man is a machine and all that. Well, I think most automakers out there have abandoned the pursuit of the beautiful car, selling us a socialistic set of wheels. I bought my Toyotas to send Detroit a message â€” hoping they’d improve their quality. I think they have to a degree. The “art” of a car is part of the package you buy so I guess I’m also sending the foreign automakers a similar message.
— Jeff Ehler
Re: Daniel Mandel’s Cutting Down Churchill to Size:
The shaded tree dreams of the lumberjack.
— David Govett
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.