Partial Political Abortion - The American Spectator | USA News and Politics
Partial Political Abortion

Re: David Holman’s Raising Kaine:

It is more than apparent to me that Virginia gubernatorial candidate Tim Kaine has read and learned well the lessons of the very same playbook that surely sits on the nightstands of the many religiously traitorous Massachusetts Catholic politicians whom I have had the misfortune of being represented by for years, at all levels of governance.

His website includes a letter that he wrote early this year which describes the steps that he took to purportedly work toward the abolishment of partial birth abortion in his state, which opens as follows: “I believe the practice should be banned to the degree the Constitution will allow. The United States Supreme Court has made it clear that a state can ban such abortions so long as there is an exception to save the life or health of the mother.” [emphasis added]

Pro-lifers need read no further to know that their intelligences are about to be insulted yet again by another cynical coward who wishes to appease them while simultaneously winking and nodding at the baby-killing crowd, and Kaine does not disappoint.

I trust that the genuine Catholics and other pro-lifers of the great Commonwealth of Virginia will easily recognize Tim Kaine as the heretic in Catholic clothing that he is.
Francis M. Hannon, Jr.
Melrose, Massachusetts

Re: James G. Poulos’s Hunter Thompson’s Reactionary Heart:

Very interesting piece. The best, and longest, eulogy for Thompson I’ve read. Makes me almost want to look into him.
Scott Horn
Akron, Ohio

Bravo to one of the best articles I have read about the good Doctor. After having read through the Rolling Stone issue, numerous articles, and the general lamenting of the Left over Thompson, it’s about time someone set things in order. If there was ever a person who represented what liberalism wasn’t, it was Hunter S. Thompson.

What the Left seems to forget is that Hunter, above everything else, was an iconoclast. He had a self-described “.45 fetish.” When he ran for sheriff in Aspen, his platform consisted of a plan to rip up the asphalt roads in town, and force everyone to walk or ride bikes. I don’t recall Hunter ever advocating liberal Big Government. If anything, he was the last true libertarian alive. At the most, all he ever wanted was to have everyone leave him alone. How much more conservative can you get?

When I was a young man in college, during my Marxist years, Hunter was everything I thought I should be — irreverent, obnoxious, a headache to the powers-that-be. As I (thankfully) grew older and wiser, I realized that Hunter had been wrong on so many occasions that it didn’t seem like he even knew what he was talking about anymore. It seemed that he was a defiant boy trapped in a man’s world, and that idea was brought home when I learned of his suicide. However, since then my heart has softened towards Hunter. He has left a body of work that cannot be equaled, and a vision for himself and his country that is fiercely in love with the individual. I think the world would be better off with more Hunter Thompsons, but it’s too bad that there could be only one.
Joel Natzke
Kansas City, Missouri

Re: Reid Collins’s Apologies, Cliff:

I’ve read the observation, on several occasions, that Hollywood’s depiction of business executives as greedy and cruel stems from the fact that the only executives the writers, directors, and producers know are in show business. Reid Collins’ attempt to portray the Enron scandal as life imitating art proves too little… or perhaps too much. Enron bamboozled investors (and many of its employees) by hiding losses and debts in “special purpose entities.” Where did the Enron crooks get this idea? It could very well have been Hollywood. (See here.)
Robert Garlin
Schenectady, New York

Reid Collins cites current business scandals as proof that the socialists are right that businessmen are wicked. I maintain instead that there are honest men and dishonest men, some in business and some not. No one dislikes a crooked businessman more than an honest one.
Michael Bergsma

Re: Chris Reed’s Arnold Agonistes:

Should it be surprising that, as Chris Reed said, California’s most influential opinion-shapers, the state’s so-called news media, are unable or unwilling to detail the extent of Democrats’ dysfunction — or that if they continue in their demonizing of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, they could ruin California?

Those media simply reflect the hatred and madness of which they’re a part. And they genuinely lack the brainpower to understand that the state’s ruin is theirs too.

Reminds you of the national Democrat Party-liberal-leftist coalition in America in many ways, doesn’t it?
C. Kenna Amos Jr.
Princeton, West Virginia

Re: Lawrence Henry’s So You Want to Run for Congress?:

Thank you for an excellent article!

I’m sure Mr. Crews worked hard against tough odds, but he needs to run about 3 times, as Newt did, before he concludes it’s hopeless. He will always be the financial underdog, but name recognition can be built through persistent running, as Newt did. Unless a person like Crews is willing to run 3 times, he really isn’t serious about winning, he is engaging in a type of crusade, a feel-good effort for a good cause, to no avail.

I am formerly from Worcester and that district did elect a Republican, Peter Blute, twice so it’s not an impossible race (he was defeated by McGovern) and nobody else will want the challenge so Crews can have the nomination if he has the fire in the belly.

Perhaps you can forward this to Mr. Crews. Thanks again for all your interesting articles about happenings in the Massachusetts liberal fever swamp.
Jon Kuniholm

The article by Mr. Henry touched on an issue that has been something of a concern with me: people who run for congressional seats against an incumbent, and who have held no prior elected office. In Vermont, every couple years, we get a sacrificial lamb who runs against Bernie Sanders, with the same result as Mr. Crews. These people have experience, usually in an advocacy field or some other cause, where they gain name recognition and some political experience, that is true. However, advocating for a cause and trying to get elected are two different animals. Most successful politicians work their way up the ladder, building electoral experience and a campaign structure as they go before they run for the statewide or national offices. You also have to solidify your donor base, as Mr. Crew so rightly pointed out. People who want to be congressmen start working towards that goal years in advance. They run small local campaigns, serve their terms, then when ready go to the next higher office. More often than not, it takes more than one try to win even when you are ready. Most people wait for an open seat but sometimes the timing is right to knock out an incumbent, as Bernie Sanders did to Peter Smith. However, the political organization of Sanders is a wonder to behold and that was built up over decades of running for office, coupled with incredible timing.

Back to Mr. Crews. You got 30% of the vote first time out. You now have a base to work from. You raised 150 grand coming out of the gate cold. That too is a seed base. Are you going to build from there? Have you thought about running for a smaller office to gain experience and political recognition? Or are you going to be another flash in the pan like others who have run and lost once? The ball’s in your court.
Pete Chagnon

Re: unsigned’s letter (under “Now Hear This”) in Reader Mail’s Cut & Shoot Republicans:

I have to admire the analysis of the reasons behind the invasion of Iraq put forth by “Unsigned” of Canada, if that is his real name. He is incredibly insightful and yet incredibly wrong in his conclusions.

This is my own opinion of the reasoning behind the invasion; I do not have access to the lofty halls of government. The Bush administration did, indeed, invade Iraq because it could.

Following the terrorist attacks of 11 September, 2001; military action was taken against the Taliban government of Afghanistan to secure access to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. But the Bush administration recognized the potential danger from three additional sources: North Korea, Iran and Iraq, the Axis of Evil. The first two were actively engaged in the acquisition of nuclear weapons and were considered “rogue” states. The last, Iraq, had proven itself to be a danger to its neighbors, under the regime of Saddam Hussein, and was still actively attempting to shoot down our aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone. In addition, Iraq was in continual violation of the UN resolutions adopted at the time of the Gulf War cease-fire.

The administration saw an opportunity to send a message to friend and foe alike that it was not a good idea to threaten the United States, let alone attack her. The message was designed to put pressure on the rogue states to cease their nuclear ambitions and to encourage their neighbors and supporters to bring pressure to bear upon them to the same end. Iraq was invaded and Hussein and his government deposed because the continual violation of the UN resolutions made it possible to justify the action. The fact that Saddam Hussein proved to be the stupidest dictator in history did not hurt, either.

There was no attempt to grab Iraq’s oil. The effort to safeguard the records of the Iraqi oil ministry was done to secure information relevant to the Oil-for-Food program. The effort to establish a “democratic” government in Baghdad may have been an after thought, but it was still part of the goals of the operation. No one expected the low level of resistance that Coalition troops encountered, nor did they foresee the “insurgency” that later ensued. There was, or should have been, a long-term plan to obtain military bases within the newly liberated Iraq, precisely to put pressure upon Iran, as Unsigned noted.

Unsigned adds his own opinions concerning the intelligence and motivations of the rest of the world, but this is where he misses the point entirely. It is not important if the rest of the world believes any explanations given by the US government concerning the reasons for the invasion of Iraq. The true point is not lost upon the world’s leaders. And if a terrorist organization attempts to smuggle an Iranian nuclear device into the US through Vancouver, Toronto or Montreal. We’ll just have to hope that it doesn’t accidentally detonate up north of the 49th. But, if things turn out as hoped, in Iraq, there may be no Iranian nuclear device in the first place.

My opinion, only.
Michael Tobias
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida

What unmitigated b.s. No wonder it’s “Unsigned.” The writer most likely moved to Canada to avoid the Draft.

Further words fail me.
Bob Johnson
Bedford, Texas

I can’t quite believe it. Not only did you print another letter (full of errors, half truths and out-and-out lies) from another unsigned coward, he’s from CANADA!

Again, guys, please. Reasonable conservatives and libertarians like your readers don’t mind alternative viewpoints, even those that don’t bear a lot of resemblance to truth, but at least insist that these timorous souls give their names. As can be seen on almost any blog or in any chat room, discourse becomes less civil when cretins are allowed to hide behind either some anonymous email ID, or the word ‘unsigned.’ Geez!

And if, as one of your readers claimed in response to my previous letter on this subject, they forget to sign ’em in their haste, send ’em back for the signature. Thank you once again for letting me vent.
Tim Jones
Cordova, Tennessee

From Canada, that little bit of Europe on this side of the Atlantic, comes another kibbitzer who won’t pony up the money to get in the game. After the lesson of the gratitude of the French, you remember WWI and WWII, we here in America don’t really expect gratitude from anyone. Our hand has been bitten by those who first dispossessed it of the gift it held so many times, that we finally don’t expect any return on kindness. Instead, we expect criticism from “Unsigneds” in countries that would like a place at the table, but refuse to pay the cost of the cover charge. The “grossly uninformed and jingoistic American public” can recognize international penis envy when it rears its ugly head (no pun intended), especially in an “ally” like The Peoples Republic of Canada.
Joseph Baum
Newton Falls, Ohio

Re: The Prowler’s Biden’s Nuclear Option:

When I first read this by The Prowler (“In Iran, Biden is known as that theocracy’s number one supporter. Every time they look to undercut the American position on Iran, they turn to him,” says a U.S. State Department staffer.) I thought it said U.S. State Democrat staffer.

But the more I think about it the more I think it’s more of an appropriate moniker given the stabs in the back State has given Bush.
Greg Barnard
Franklin, Tennessee

Sign up to receive our latest updates! Register

By submitting this form, you are consenting to receive marketing emails from: The American Spectator, 122 S Royal Street, Alexandria, VA, 22314, You can revoke your consent to receive emails at any time by using the SafeUnsubscribe® link, found at the bottom of every email. Emails are serviced by Constant Contact

Be a Free Market Loving Patriot. Subscribe Today!