RIGHT OR NOT?
Re: Jennifer Rubin’s Rudy’s New Social Conservatism:
I consider myself to be one of those red-necked, evangelical, right-wing, Southern hicks the mainstream media loves to make fun of. And the type of Republican that would never vote for Rudy. But after reading this article, I am inclined to believe that Rudy is probably more of a “social conservative” than either Senator McCain or Mitt Romney. Rudy is true to his word, he is honest, and best of all he doesn’t have a politically correct bone in his body. Yes, many of us Southern redneck, evangelicals will vote for Rudy, because right now he is the only GOP candidate we can trust. We know McCain has no integrity, he has stabbed Bush and the GOP in the back so many times that if the knives were sticking out, we would all look like porcupines, and Mitt, who knows what he will flip flop on next?
— Lee Schafer
New Caney, Texas
No matter how apologists for Rudy try to spin it, the man is a social liberal who should be denied the GOP presidential nomination. And before conservatives consider voting for Giuliani, they should consider this.
Giuliani is indeed a strong willed New Yorker who has done wonders in bringing order to that dysfunctional city. In doing so, as Jenny Rubin writes, “he disdains interest group politics with a vengeance.” She quotes “America’s mayor” as saying that he didn’t “subscribe to the bells and whistles that some politicians will subscribe to just to pander to a community.” She also cites how Giuliani took on bullies like the Mob, Al Sharpton, etc.
All well and good. But realize, my right-wing amigos, that to a strong willed liberal like Rudy, the NRA and pro-life groups are the bullies and he will not pander to them. Another “bully” Rudy took on as mayor was the Immigration Service as he turned NYC into essentially a haven for illegal aliens.
And it is more than disingenuous for Rubin to try and paint Giuliani’s as a social conservative because of his so-called Catholic upbringing. This doesn’t square with Rudy’s his three marriages, including his scandalous second divorce which was precipitated by his multiple adulterous affaires — all while having kids at home yet. Ah yes, that’s our Rudy — a hard-charging, fun-loving kind of a guy.
The bottom line is this. The strengths that give Giuliani his leadership bite are the same strengths that could be turned against the conservative movement once this man has power. You’ve been warned.
— Peter Skurkiss
Jennifer Rubin’s column that desperately tries to make Rudy “conservative” fails.
Rubin never addresses a major issue with the Mayor, his apparent misunderstanding of the Second Amendment. He said he had to use “gun control” when he took over as mayor. He supported the so-called “assault weapon ban,” yet he understands that hunter’s rights should not be violated. Uh, Rudy as a lifetime member of the NRA, I can assure you “it ain’t about duck huntin.'” I will never vote for a man that has called for each gun owner to take a test and get a license before he can buy a nice light 20 gauge side by side at the gun show. You see I fought a war to keep that sort of crap from happening in this great country.
Rest assured that five million members of the NRA will remind folks of where Rudy stands on the issue.
— Jim Karr
Blue Springs, Missouri
As a libertarian conservative, I believe the state should refrain from any functions other than protecting citizens against the initiation of force or fraud. However, I am willing to compromise to some extent. I don’t expect a candidate for president to advocate selling the streets and the schools (at least not this election cycle), however beneficial such policies would be. Still, how can conservatives compromise something as basic as protection of innocent life?
Abortion is the initiation of force against a human being. We murder over one million babies each and every year. This issue is right up there with response to the terrorist goons that threaten to take large numbers of American lives, while they disturb the world peace necessary for all of us to flourish. We should not settle for a candidate that does not concern himself about BOTH violations of the most basic human right, the right to peaceful enjoyment of one’s own life. If Rudy is the Republican candidate, he will not receive my vote, regardless of how bad the Democrat demagogue might be. My ability to compromise simply does not stretch that far.
Those so-called practical conservatives who seek Republican return to power at any cost should ask themselves: “Power to accomplish what?” If you believe Rudy would actually appoint “strict constructionist” judges in opposition to every social instinct he has ever had, you must be smoking that substance that impairs judgment but should still not be illegal.
— Stephen Zierak
Did it ever occur to all the writers who bend themselves into pretzels trying to “explain” Rudy that maybe he has been a Conservative (with a capital C) all along and in order to be a Republican mayor in New York City, he had to gloss over the “social” conservative part?
I want a President who will win the war on Radical Islam; one who will appoint judges who strictly interpret the Constitution; and one who understands the importance of secure borders. I want a President who will stop the influx of illegals and one who will tell the Mexican government to sit down and shut up: This is NOT their country, it is ours.
After that, I don’t care how many times he has been married or if he has gay friends. I’m divorced, I have gay friends, and I’m a Conservative with a Capital C, too!
— Judy Beulmer
Whew! That sound you hear is the collective sigh of relief from social conservatives around this great land. We thought there was a problem with the possibility that the Republican Party might nominate a flaming liberal for President. Then along comes Ms. Rubin with a new definition of what social conservatism is and, Shazzam! The supposed problem disappears.
No longer are we faced with the choice between a Republican who would continue and accelerate the slaughter of unborn babies, attack our 2nd Amendment rights and facilitate the continued assault on our borders by illegal aliens and a Socialist/Democrat who would do exactly the same thing.
Thanks, Jennifer! We all feel so much better now!
— Keith Kunzler
Unless we Republicans want to see at least four and maybe more years of a Democrat in the White House and Democrats controlling congress, we had better get passed our social debate on abortion and get behind Rudy. He is the only Republican candidate with an impressive, “have done” resume who can take away votes from Democratic candidates. Or we can back the other more conservative Republican candidates and watch Hillary or Obama win and Pelosi be third in line for the presidency.
— Dan Mittelman
I am a passionate advocate of the Second Amendment. I would vote for Rudy in a heartbeat were I able to trust him on this one issue.
I lived in New York City while he was mayor for six years. Voted for him twice. Was proud as could be of him after 9/11.
But the Second Amendment is not negotiable.
Neither a “right to abortion” nor a “right to gay marriage” is affirmed or denied by the Constitution.
By contrast, the “right to keep and bear arms” is affirmed.
I wish someone would ask him what part of “infringed” he doesn’t understand.
— James Wasserman
Palm City, Florida
BRING IT ON
Re: R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.’s Global Warming is Our Friend:
“Meanwhile, I am sitting here in our nation’s capital freezing. In California, the citrus crop is near ruin.”
Um, climate and weather are not the same.
Did you skip the global carbon cycle in eighth grade?
You should be ashamed.
— Lois Brynes
If you don’t like Global Warming, you’re going to hate Global Cooling!
— P. Garrison
When you write articles on global warming I suggest you start with the beginning of the warming. Global warming started over 1.5 million years ago. What everyone forgets is North America was nothing but an ice mass. Canada was uninhabitable while 50% of the United States was under an ice pack. The environment was not suited for human habitation. After a million years of Global Warming we ended up with a nation of over 300 million, green grass, farms, flowers, abundance of food & clean water.
Looks like Global Warming created a paradise for the citizens of this continent.
Where has all the memory cells in the brains of these environmental terrorists go? Tell ALL the facts not just the ones that are convenient to your opinion.
— Kenneth Parady
Grand Rapids, Michigan
Mr. Tyrrell’s take on the hysterics from the environmentalist is certainly true, but they wouldn’t have so effective in scaring the hell out of the populace if it weren’t for the fawning press. I have lived through and survived the hysterical pronouncements by the greenies and witnessed the negative effects of their scare tactics. Two glaring examples of their success were the killing nuclear power in the U.S. while our friendly allies, the French, succeeded reducing their dependence on foreign energy by 70 percent, and preventing offshore drilling for oil while our imports grew from about 30 percent in the mid 20th century to over 60 percent today, All the while, the toadies in the press not only cheered them on but signed on to the frenzied rhetoric.
— Tom Bullock
West Covina, California
Concerning R. Emmett Tyrrell’s article “Global Warming Is Our Friend,” I don’t know if he realizes how correct he is on this matter.
The earth’s climate didn’t start 30 years ago as most global warming believers seem to think.
In fact, over historic times (the past 2,000 years) the climate has been prone to radical, naturally occurring variations.
In the time from the first Millennium up to the onset of the Little Ice Age (about year 1325 AD) the earth’s climate was significantly warmer than it is today.
During this time, a thriving agriculturally based settlement of Vikings in Greenland was in full swing. Britain was capable of producing excellent wine on its own soil. After the start of the Little Ice Age, they had to import their wine from France. Several varieties of plant life ranged many hundreds of miles farther north than they do today because it is still too cold at this time.
Were the effects of this much warmer climate at that time anywhere near as disastrous as the scare mongers of today portray?
In fact, it was just the opposite! Europe enjoyed a significant increase in population over this warm period. It was good times! Crops were bountiful and people lived fairly well.
This completely changed with the Little Ice Age. Mass starvation, Bubonic Plague, incessant wars and large population losses were the order of that time.
We are still emerging from the disastrous climate of the Little Ice Age, which ended about 1820. The earth is warming up because it’s supposed to.
I’m with Mr. Tyrrell. Celebrate Global Warming!!
— Bob Kenney
When Greenland is green again and British vineyards are producing wine of a higher quality than France people will appreciate global warming. It was only a few centuries when both were reality. I look forward to the day when they’re reality again.
If the Chicken Littles of global warming are really concerned with the ‘threat” then they should embrace nuclear power and willingly surrender their incomes to those of us willing to shoulder the guilt of large carbon footprints. By allowing us to take on this burden they can live more humble lives in tune with their beliefs and fears. I’d be willing to relieve Bill Gates, George Soros, Warren Buffet, Sir Richard Branson or even Al Gore of their fortunes to help them with their guilt and “sin” mother earth. This is definitely a win-win for them and me.
Come global warming, come!!!!
— Michael Tomlinson
Jacksonville, North Carolina
A glass half full guy, I like that. Bring on the global warming! It’s -4F here today, without the wind-chill.
— Robert Rix
Re: William Tucker’s Tilting at Wind Energy:
Your article on wind electricity said basically “erratic wind generation is not very useful to an electric grid.” But you made a serious omission. That should read “electric wind generation is not very useful to an electric grid — without a huge battery to store energy for peak times.”
“But,” you say, “there is no such huge wonderful battery in existence.” Wrong you are. Near Ludington, Michigan, the Consumer’s Energy Corporation maintains an 842-acre reservoir of about 3-billion gallons of water. During the night electric turbines pump the water 363 feet uphill from Lake Michigan. During the day — and peak electric demand — the water is release back through the reversible turbines to generate electricity. Wind could be used to charge that big battery.
Combining wind technology to capture the energy and hydro technology to store it allows wind generation to provide power on demand.
— Eric Richter
Mr. Tucker did such a good job at exposing the environmentalist resistance to wind energy, I could suggest the same effort be applied to exposing their inconsistency on trains.
The environmentalists are often at the forefront of reinvigorating our train system. Being mostly socialist, they are blissfully unaware of the economic reasons they have fallen into disuse. The newer and more robust car designs are intended to be much more efficient in carrying raw bulk materials.
I love to see the look on their faces when they suddenly realize that paying for these trains will involve the opening of sand and gravel pits, cutting off the tops of mountains, logging and the transportation of the most evil carbon molecules in coal.
— Danny L. Newton
STATE OF THE COMMONWEALTH
Re: James Bowman’s All Apologies:
Kindly point out to Mr. Bowman, in his otherwise most excellent piece this morning, that there is no such thing as the “state” of Virginia. We are, and have been since independence from Great Britain, the Commonwealth of Virginia.
— Thomas M. Moncure, Jr.
Office of University Counsel
George Mason University
While I very much liked Mr. Bowman’s recent article, “All Apologies,” I have to point out his geographical error at the end when he says that the state of Virginia (because of its current politicians) can no longer be described as the “mother of presidents” but the mother of “prigs, poltroons and poseurs.” You see, that state is much further north of Virginia, and is called Massachusetts. I think Mr. Bowman should apologize to Senator Kennedy and Mr. Kerry for his error.
— John Patterson
New York City, New York
A QUESTION OF FAITH
Re: Anthony Mirvish’s letter (under “Giuliani Jitters”) in Reader Mail’s Rudy Reconsidered?:
Anthony Mirvish writes some well thought correspondence, but it warrants a reply. I am happy that he supports the right to life on entirely secular and rational grounds. I, on the other hand, can’t be reasoned with. So, while I may not categorically support the right to life, I most certainly oppose the right to abortion — on entirely religious grounds.
Mirvish writes: “Yes, it is important. But, how important is it compared to everything else? …. I’m talking about balancing the budget, entitlement reform, regulatory relief, tort reform, a line-item veto, border control and immigration, who sits on the Supreme Court, national defense all the other size and scope of government issues that, broadly speaking, define a very large part of the conservative agenda.”
This litany of issues, I’m afraid, will be with us for generations. They are like John Edwards in front of the mirror perfecting his hair-do; the job is never done. And matters of life and death presuppose all of them. What does it benefit us to gain entitlement reform but lose our souls?
But, Mr. Mirvish asks: “If a candidate came along who was firmly pro-life and anti-gay marriage but who was otherwise ‘big government,’ would religious conservatives support him?”
Maybe yes, maybe no. But he asks the wrong question. The correct question is, “If a candidate came along who was firmly pro-life and anti-gay marriage but who was otherwise big government,” would liberals who are religious vote for him?”
Democrats are slow learners, but learn they eventually do.
You could ask Bob Casey Jr. or Heath Shuler for the answer to the right question.
— Dan Martin
BOBBIE’S BIBLICAL BACKUP
Re: Letters under “Not For Teacher” in Reader Mail’s Rudy Reconsidered?:
Bobbie Walden seems to have generated the usual feeding frenzy from your ultra-right readers — those who keep loaded semi-automatic weapons on their bed stands just in case al Qaeda manages to break into their bunkers while they’re asleep. Although I would agree that Walden’s letter was not well written, I would argue that her complaints are intelligible and are shared by millions of non-Trotskyite Americans.
Despite A. DiPentima’s economic optimism, one should be extremely skeptical of the figures he quotes, since most war-related costs are excluded from the budget. Then there are the hundred-million-plus people who will be reaching retirement age within the next few years, the majority of whose savings will be insufficient to stave off bankruptcy.
Ironically, one defect of George W. Bush that incenses many Americans is that he isn’t really a practicing Christian. How well has Bush followed these teachings of Jesus (from Matthew)?
“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.”
“Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
Going to church regularly and claiming to be born again doesn’t cut it for true believers. Bush insisted on invading Iraq, causing thousands deaths, against the judgment of the world community. He has all but ignored the financial and medical needs of the majority of Americans who, unlike him, will never live off interest, dividends and capital gains.
— Abe Grossman
Pleasantville, New York