ROSES FOR TOKYO
Re: George H. Wittman’s The Nuances of Co-Prosperity:
Mr. Wittman’s article seems to convey a concern over the fact that Japan, a reliable U.S. ally for over fifty years, is now asserting its foreign policy independence. I must say, I don’t understand his fear of a resurgent Japan. In my mind, the rise of Japan in the post-WWII years is one of the very few positive geo-political developments for the U.S. Japan has proven itself to be the only non-Anglo country that has been consistently supportive of the U.S. in times of crisis. As the second-largest economy in the world, their somewhat obsequious deference to U.S. foreign policy interests has been a major stumbling block to their full integration into the modern defense framework. It is rarely mentioned in the leftist MSM, but the fact is that today the U.S. (having about 26% of world GDP) and Japan (having about 17% of world GDP) generates about half of all of the industrial output of the developed world. Why castigate the Japanese for now requiring the rightful recognition commensurate with their strengths?
When I consider the history of the past fifty years, during which our European “allies” have continually acted counter to our attempts to secure their defense (which is a development that I find beyond rational understanding), the inconsistent support of the Indian sub-continent (regardless of today’s lukewarm business relationship), and the fact that we have had outright shooting wars with Russia and China (directly and through their proxies), I have to conclude that aligning ourselves with the Japanese is a no-brainer, not something to fret over. Let our other erstwhile “allies” and avowed enemies be forced to make their accommodations to the growing U.S.-Japan alliance. What could be better!
— Harry Hill
BIG BAD JOHN
Re: Doug Bandow’s John McCain: Beyond the Fusionist Pale:
Nothing wrong, or as far as I know inaccurate, about anything in Mr. Bandow piece. But he said not a word about McCain’s teaming up with Ted Kennedy in the Senate last year to sponsor a comprehensive immigration reform bill, a bill which pushed for amnesty, pushed for greatly increased numbers of so-called guest workers despite the absence of compelling data that we need them, and which paid scant attention to border enforcement.
I would say two things: first, teaming up with Ted Kennedy on anything is a dubious way to burnish one’s alleged conservative credentials and presidential aspirations; second, unless I miss my guess others will also be writing to remind that McCain, as senators are wont to say, helped ‘lead the charge’ to try and shove unwanted and poorly considered immigration legislation down our throats.
During or soon after that failed attempt, in response to a question about a border fence, McCain was quoted as snippily saying: “Aw hell, I’ll build the damn fence if that’s what they want.” (One possible interpretation: I’ll say that I’ll build the damn fence if that’ll help get me elected.) Hardly a profile in principled politicking.
— C. Vail
Thank you, Doug Bandow. It is good to have solid reasons to back up my visceral dislike for Senator McCain. May he remain the Senior Senator from Arizona forever — one percent of the Senate!!! I can’t wait to read the rest of the Letters to the Editor today.
— Judy Beumler
Mr. Bandow’s rundown on John McCain’s non-conservative/conservative political career is useful, if only to remind that conservatives have been so hungry to have one of their own in power, that some will continue to support a recurring candidate who may have few, if any, conservative credentials — regardless of what he says and in spite of his voting record.
— C. Kenna Amos
Princeton, West Virginia
What is your position on the Iraq War? You continue to publish articles which reflect negatively on the U.S. efforts there. Today it was Doug Bandow’s article which, in the first sentence of the first paragraph, referred to the “wretched state of the Iraq war.” And, the previous articles by the reporter in Iraq (I don’t remember who it is…) which also reflect negatively on our efforts. They in essence present a picture of futility, and the writer has simply got to be an absolute coward and in abject fear for his life — why not bring him home if you haven’t?
— Wade White
Franklin, New York
What part of John McCain’s … duplicitous unprincipled nature do you not understand? First and foremost he is all about himself. He panders to the left-wing media, aligns with liberals like Kennedy and Feingold and is the antithesis of just about every conservative goal. Furthermore, he is a petty, arrogant carpetbagger who is unresponsive to his constituents. A worse presidential candidate and senator than Hillary.
— Seth Kanter
John McCain learned the wrong lessons from observing President Reagan raising income and payroll taxes 7 times and granting blanket amnesty and citizenship to millions of illegal aliens. Like self-described “Reagan conservatives” who’ve bastardized the Gipper’s record to buttress their political views McCain, who sees himself as TR and Reagan rolled into one, has created a Reagan myth of bipartisanship. Staunchly Republican Reagan like TR was anything, but bipartisan in his politics.
Reagan compromised, because he had to govern or in the case of amnesty and citizenship for illegal aliens believed it was the right thing to do. John McCain seems motivated by political opportunism and grandstanding. That’s why he finds it easy to urge an aggressive war on terror, but “civil liberties” for terrorists all the while joining Democrats to stifle American’s 1st and 2d Amendment rights.
All that said, like Reagan, I’ll be voting a straight ticket in 2008. Hopefully, if McCain is the nominee he’ll grow in office to become more like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush and less like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.
— Michael Tomlinson
Jacksonville, North Carolina
How anyone that calls themselves conservative can even consider voting for John McCain is totally beyond my poor powers of imagination.
— Ken Shreve
Re: Jeffrey Lord’s Matthew Dowd Stockman:
Mr. Lord’s analysis of the latest NYT hit piece on President Bush is very good. Mr. Lord identifies in the piece a tell-tale sign of liberal thinking — the desire for “settled consensus.” This line sums it up:
“The Dowd/Stockman [read liberal] view that a president needs to settle for consensus instead of exerting presidential leadership is a view that, thankfully, America’s more thoughtful chief executives have ignored.”
The notion that consensus should drive the decision of an executive is rooted in the desire for personnel comfort. By this I mean when the events of the world seem negative and have weighed heavily on a person and the person has decided to give up whatever it was that was causing the negative feelings, the act of giving up and moving to the alternate position of apparent “consensus” removes the negative feelings and the person acquires a greater level of personnel comfort. The person is no longer bucking a trend, but is part of a trend.
This is surrender on a personnel level. The acknowledgment of such is regarded by the left and the MSM as the ultimate act of a hero. Personnel surrender is reported as front page news. Important analogies are drawn to international affairs. Nonbelievers are relegated to brutish thugs mired in pride and perverse ideas of martial glory.
I suppose this viewpoint has been around for a long time, but it wasn’t trumpeted as the “settled consensus” until the Vietnam War. Now the old counter-culture warriors from the 1960s and early ’70s have brought it out again. The Iraq war scars you, don’t worry admit the war is wrong and you’re a hero. The Iraq war confuses you, don’t worry admit the war is wrong and you’re a hero. Negative reporting on the war got you down, don’t worry admit the war is wrong and you’re a hero.
What happened to the notion that American heroes are the men and women on the front lines who make the ultimate sacrifice fighting for our freedom? What happened to the notion that American heroes are the men and women who win the bronze star or the medal of honor fighting to bring free, open and representative government to an oppressed people? Why aren’t stories of these men and women reported on the front page of the New York Times?
— Doug Santo
Re: Lawrence Henry’s What Do We Really Think About Immigration?:
A man comes here, works hard, improves his life, send his children to school, makes them behave, etc. and his only crime is that he crossed a line in the desert somewhere. I admire him. I hope that I would do the same if I were in his circumstances. A second man comes, sell drugs, get into fights, ignores any law that is inconvenient, abuses the welfare system (I know, it invites abuse), has children here and there, doesn’t pay child support etc. and we cannot discriminate between these two men?
Local law enforcement knows who the troublemakers are and should be the ones who decide who must go. When someone comes to there attention and is an illegal, that person should get a brief court appearance, submit to photos, give DNA and blood samples and then get a trip back to wherever they came from with instructions that make it clear that their next illegal entry will be regarded as an invasion punishable by 20 years in an outsourced jail in Guatemala.
The whole debate about whether illegals are good or bad for the U.S. is silly. Some illegals contribute and some are a clear detriment and if we cannot distinguish between the two, we deserve what we get.
— Merlin Perkins
INTEREST ON ICE
Re: Paul Beston’s Felon Ball:
You are so right, Paul.
Long ago I gave up watching these overpaid thugs. It has been many, many years since I watched a professional football game. The occasional time that I watch MLB is when Vince Scully is broadcasting a Dodger game and I tune in to hear him, not to watch the dopers and the crotch grabbers. I never, and I mean never, watch basketball, professional or college.
The only major league sport that I watch is the National Hockey League. Classy players and the players, the media, the league, and its owners are determined to keep it that way.
— Russell Tolchard
Re: David Hogberg’s A Prescription for Bias:
I sometimes feel compelled to write the many biased media outlets and tell them where “they got it wrong.” On the other hand, rather than give them false hope that they have one viewer more than they thought, I just turn the channel and watch FOX.
— P. Aaron Jones
Huntington Woods, Michigan
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://spectatorworld.com/.
The offer renews after one year at the regular price of $79.99.