RUDY, AIM, FIRE
Re: Deroy Murdock’s Ready for Rudy:
“Ready for Rudy” is a fine article and quite inspiring. Now let’s complete the portrait. Let’s discuss Rudy’s support for abortion on demand and same-sex “marriage.”
— Andy Fuller
How startlingly short the memory of those Republicans who would float presidential candidacy trial balloons on behalf of fellows such as Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney. Wasn’t it the consensus view on both sides of the political aisle that the hair’s breadth difference at the end of the day in ’04 was the values voters? Based on his meaningless mumbling at Pepperdine University just last week concerning abortion, John Kerry sure as hell thinks so!
Would the GOP be foolish enough to allow a pro-choicer or friend of the anti-family homosexual lobby to carry its flag in ’08? That this is even a serious question is a source of morbid fascination!
— Francis M. Hannon, Jr.
Not everyone’s ready for Rudy. He’s so out of line with the social conservative portion of the Republican Party that he’ll have to do more than “repackage” himself; he’ll have to convince social conservatives that he saw the light on the way to Damascus (or, better, the Bronx). Maybe there’s a place for Vice President Giuliani, or Secretary or State or Defense Giuliani, but don’t be minting those nifty presidential gold medallions just yet.
— Jeff Schmidt
While Deroy Murdock justly points out the many ways in which Mr. Giuliani was an exemplary mayor of New York City. He downplays the very serious concerns of the Pro-Life Movement. The abortion issue was one of the main reasons Americans voted against another pro-abortion Catholic, John Kerry. Repeating the mistake on the Right makes no sense whatsoever. Dissing social conservatives is a recipe for disaster.
— Gregory Tatum
Rudy has unquestioned qualities of leadership and courage. But, he is pro abortion in the extreme; pro gun confiscation, while willfully misrepresenting the context of “militia” in terms of the Constitution, and is pro gay marriage, and these are the just the minor social differences with the conservative, still somewhat Republican base. We are not even discussing his sordid personal marriage history.
The idea that the base in mass would not sit out an election with him as the R. presidential candidate even if (highly unlikely) Rudy were nominated is delusional.
— Craig Sarver
Behind Enemy Lines
I greatly enjoyed the Deroy Murdock article on Mayor Rudy. I would opine that the current war with the Islamic Jihadists would be going a great deal better were Rudy at the head of it. I wonder, however, if he would have appointed someone like Sec. Def. Rumsfeld and then had the audacity to stick with his appointee during a very messy, very bloody, but necessary transformation of the U. S. military to a lighter, faster, but more lethal military. Rudy does not seem to be the type of politician that can operate well while sharing the spotlight with one of his appointees.
I would have to see great change in Rudy’s stances in three areas in order to vote for him, plus seeing a comprehensive discussion of the kind of judges that a Rudy administration would nominate. First, Rudy would simply have to genuinely reverse his thinking on the 2nd Amendment. It is real simple. If you are an advocate of the freely exercised right to bear arms, then I am with you. If not, then I am not. That means no registration of guns, or their law abiding owners, period. It also means a “Shall Issue” policy on carry permits, and passage of a “Castle Doctrine” that removes any need to attempt to retreat from a threat to my person or that of my family when I am abiding by the law in a place that I have a legal right to be. This is NOT an issue that I am squishy on.
Second, the border control issue must be dealt with and settled before any bill to grant citizenship rights to illegal aliens. That means that the borders must be effectively sealed against the invasion of illegals. It also means that any illegal here now would have to return to their home country and apply for admission to the U. S., AND wait in their home country for permission to emigrate. We had an amnesty under Pres. Reagan, and it didn’t work. Quite simply the carrots are passed out immediately, but the sticks are NEVER applied. I also want to see a deliberate and consistent crack down on the employers that hire illegals, not some kind of token enforcement. If the employer doesn’t swing, it ain’t got no zing.
I would lump together the homosexual rights and the abortion rights issues. Bottom line is that these are both gender rights issues in my view. I would like to see abortion illegal except for rape, incest, and the life (not health) of the mother. I can, however, live with the first step of outlawing the late term abortions/partial birth abortions as a down payment on heading in the right direction. As for homosexuality, society got along well enough for many millennia without the many having to have the sexual habits of the few shoved in our faces. You do your thing and I will do mine, but I don’t want to be constantly told (or shown) what you are doing. I also do not think that companies should be told who has to be covered under their employee benefit plans. It has served the purpose well for society to favor heterosexual arrangements, since we have no interest in our species becoming extinct, and nature’s plan for the perpetuation of the species is the heterosexual model.
If Rudy can come to these three threshold levels, then we can talk about nominees to SCOTUS and the other levels of the Federal Judiciary. Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito are the acceptable models. Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer do not pass the test. And for our Libertarian friends, Janice Rodgers-Brown would be a splendid choice for elevation to the SCOTUS.
So, how about it, Rudy? Can we talk?
— Ken Shreve
Rudy can win the Abortion issue by shifting the argument away from abortion and onto judges. So long as Rudy goes for strict constructionist judges, he can win.
— John Jaggers
Re: Paul Beston’s X-Ray Vision:
Living here in Madison, Wisconsin among the “Regime Change Begins at Home,” “Impeach Bush,” and “Support the Troops, End the War” bumper stickers, Mr. Beston’s review of Honor: A History resonated.
There is an appearances aspect to honor — I was disrespected, so I must seek redress. There is also a pragmatic aspect to honor — if I am disrespected and do not seek redress, I show weakness and can expect consequences. But there is also an internal sense of doing what is right and what is honorable simply for the sake of it.
At the conclusion of the first Gulf War, there are those who said we should have rolled on to Baghdad while others said that if we toppled Saddam, what would follow would be general chaos followed by a proxy war with Iran. We stayed out of Iraq, and Kurdish and Shiite revolts that followed were brutally suppressed. Although we were hoping for a palace coup within Saddam’s inner circle rather than a general Shiite uprising that we feared would play into Iran’s hand, standing by and watching our erstwhile allies brutalized was dishonorable.
As long as we have allies in Iraq who have not asked us to leave, it would be a dishonor to leave. There is a blood price for staying, but part of that was incurred 15 years ago when thousands who could have helped us lost their lives.
Why don’t we just pack up and go? There is a general effort to make this seem honorable. We are told the Iraqis are tribal, driven by factions, corrupt, and incapable of self governance: in other words beneath our honor. It is hard to think who among the chattering classes would think less of us for leaving, and as to terrorists seeing this as weakness, the attacks that result are in some indefinite future. There is ample precedent for America abandoning allies in Tibet, Cuba, Vietnam, Iran, and other places. We study the Peloponnesian War and fear that standing by an ally in the wrong circumstance could bring about our doom. But is our sense of honor driven by appearances or consequences, or do we as a society still retain a sense of what is right?
— Paul Milenkovic
DOSE OF COMMON SENSE
Re: William Tucker’s Dispelling Nuclear Phantoms:
Not only are low levels of radiation beneficial, but almost every substance has a beneficial level and a harmful level. One or two aspirin can reduce inflammation and pain. Swallowing a whole bottle could be fatal. Even water, drunk in a huge quantity, could kill a man. Toxicologists know “The dose makes the poison.” The irrational idea that there is no safe level of radiation has caused the country to lose its chance for energy independence.
— David Moshinsky
Re: Doug Bandow’s Reproductive Killing Rights:
Doug Bandow has once again called it like it is concerning the issue of abortion. Strident defenders of this practice do not tolerate even the slightest modification in existing laws that protect what they view as a sacred right. Since the emanations cited by a liberal majority on the Supreme Court miraculously appeared in the penumbra of the Constitution and paved the way for the legalization of killing unborn children, abortion rights activists have worked overtime to insure that no breach in their, up to now, impenetrable wall occurs. With unanimity, they continue to oppose any and all restrictions such as parental notification for underage girls, health code compliance regulations for abortion clinics or any limit on late-term abortions, all the while denouncing anyone who dares to disagree with them as perpetrators of some sinister plot to set back the cause of women’s rights. Political candidates seeking their support must pass a litmus test on this issue before receiving any endorsement from pro-abortion organizations or special interest groups. Then they have the gall to bemoan the fact that the controversy surrounding reproductive rights remains squarely centered on abortion.
The reason they want to talk about something else is because it is becoming increasingly difficult for them to defend a procedure that always results in the termination of life. Advances in science and technology belie pro-abortion proponents’ claims that the life inside the womb is anything other than fully human. They also foresee a time in the not too distant future when the people of the United States will finally get the opportunity to decide for themselves whether or not abortion should be permitted and, if so, what restrictions should be placed upon it. That is what has groups like the Center for American Progress scurrying for cover. They can no longer take comfort in the fact that their side in this great cultural debate will be protected by judicial fiat.
— Rick Arand
Lee’s Summit, Missouri
If the progressives in the Democrat Party are so fervent in their views with regard to “Reproductive Rights,” should conservatives try to stop this procedure?
Do we really want these people to reproduce?
— Ed Thoma
LOSING TO LOSE
Re: Stephen Slivinski’s Losing to Win:
Stephen Slivinski, like all libertarians and so-called conservatives who embrace a losing to win scenario, reveals a political naivete that is astounding. A Republican loss this November does not spell victory in 2008 or anytime in the near future. Based on political history, a Democrat win means Republicans will be locked out of Congressional leadership for at least a decade if not longer. A Democrat Congress should terrify all rational and patriotic Americans determined to defeat imperialistic Islam, protect traditional values and maintain our booming economy (the best in 50 years). If it doesn’t you’re not a conservative.
A loss in November means conservatives and Republicans desperate for a win may turn to John McCain in 2008. A McCain Presidency, if he could be elected, would make the Nixon administration look conservative and be devastating to our movement. Chances are the Democrats will actually win the Presidency in 2008 if Republicans lose this November. The momentum will be on their side.
Slivinski’s assertion that the loss in 1992 led to the Gingrich revolution is simplistic. The party was clearly moving in that direction before the 1992 Clinton victory. In fact, Bush 41’s problems arose from making deals (like Reagan) with the Democrats to reduce domestic spending (apparently Slivinski’s main concern). While Clinton’s win was good news to Slivinski it was bad news for the US. The Clinton legacy of indifference to terrorism is a major contributing factor to our current war. It would not have happened under George H. W. Bush who proved he had the backbone to take on Arab and Muslim thugs.
The “deficit hawks” need a reality check. When Ronald Reagan entered the White House Federal spending was 18 percent of GDP. It peaked at 23.5 percent during his administration and was 21 percent when he left office. The high under President Bush is 20.1 percent and we are at war. Under President Bush (43) taxes have been cut every year of his Presidency. Under Reagan there were two major income tax increases and a FICA tax increase. The deficit under Reagan was 5.9 percent it is currently 2.5 percent of GDP and will be balanced in 2009 or earlier unless the Democrats take power.
The gloom and doom and complaints of the “loser” conservatives are not based on reality, but an over-dependence on their own wisdom.
— Michael Tomlinson
I am very unhappy with my Texas Senators and would happily vote for someone other than a Republican if that someone had the country’s interest at heart. Instead I get Senators that want to give “guest worker” plans a go and that is nothing more than Amnesty.
I am not voting for the Republican Governor because his answer to the illegals is to say it is a federal problem. Well my school tax dollars are not going to the “federal” government and our schools are being over run and he had many special sessions over school funding.
Give me a REAL choice and I am not stuck in the Republican column. As it stands now the Democrats would all just give our country over to the U.N. and have an open border. So just what choice do I have, not vote or vote for the lesser of two evils?
— Elaine Kyle
SMILE FOR ME
Re: Diane Smith’s letter (under “If It Be Real”) in Reader Mail’s Tough Talk:
How delightful to hear from Diane Smith again. If it be real, it be Diane Smith! I know I’ll be careful for whom I volunteer to hold a door.
Only seen a couple of your letters the past few months, Diane. My wife and I look for them every day. We love your wit. And, you’ve evidently educated most all of the contributors, as I see “spot on” in use in several pieces. See, you have a following!
Keep ’em coming!
— Mike Showalter
P.S. And yes, I’d still love to get that fruitcake, or at least the recipe with ALL your secret ingredients. Getting close to that time of year, and too, I’d like to get this ‘bug’ out of my ear, if you know what I mean. I think she wants to make one for one of our family
holiday meals. Help, Diane, help!
Re: Jed Babbin’s Islamic Brownshirts:
Don’t overlook Belgium, which to me is more of a front-line surrender state than France. It may be easy to overlook because of its size. Its role as European Union capital has gone to its head. It has become the self-conferred “moral” capital.
— T. Garvey
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/.