Re: The Washington Prowler’s Clinton on the Dole:
Thank you for the opportunity of reading the important article, “Clinton on the Dole,” through Rush’s website. The average citizen is, now, getting the facts re: events of interest through groups like you.
— Charlie Gilmore
Someone needs to ask Bob Dole to please abdicate in favor of Ann Coulter. I will start watching “60 Minutes” again to see that confrontation, but certainly won’t tune in for Clinton vs. Dole.
— Joe Huston
Rush a non-starter, yeah, right. Clinton would be blown away against Rush! Besides Rush would never lower himself to appear with Clinton. Clinton isn’t even fit to clean Rush’s shoes!
Also, from the couple of minutes I saw of this show, it was pitiful.
— Joanne Sheldon
There is nothing provocative about a perjurious, classless fugitive from justice named Clinton to debate or entertain. He just isn’t worth it.
— Sid Marquis
Ann Coulter surely could hold her own intellectually with any arguments that this dumb-ass could come up with, but, she would be to busy watching where his hands were and fighting off sexual advances. Obviously if he doesn’t know what the definition of is is, then he sure as hell doesn’t know that NO means NO!
— Jeffrey W. Holloway
Limbaugh would eat Billy Baby alive! And so would Ann Coulter!
— Curtis Deen
There was definitely a joker in the group who was suggesting Rush for the show. It was not serious, believe me. Clinton does not want to stoop to that level. And if Ann Coulter had been the opponent, I would clearly have vomited, ugh!!!
Loved the article but you should know that a million dollars is seven figures and not six.
— Phil Kraker
I just clicked on a link to your site from Rush’s site. I love it, but you should think about changing that Times Roman font — too hard to read. Use something without the “curly serif” like Arial, Verdana, Tahoma, or Helvetica.
Anyway, you have a nice looking site which is easy to navigate –good colors and cute little “Prowler Birdie.”
— Carol Tullar
Cedar Hill, TX
Re: Enemy Central’s Fools of the Trade:
Was it not the same Terry Moran who, with the help of his neighborly sister, “kneecapped” Linda Chavez with the “illegal alien/didn’t pay Social Security taxes rap during her appointment process to be Sec. of Labor? A conservative Hispanic in a Cabinet level position? Oh, the Horror! I guess we should have seen the Estrada filibuster coming. Congratulations on a fine choice for the Enemy of the Week.
— Lloyd Coffin
The Tyrrell piece that sparked such a breathless discussion of her chances to unseat Bush came across during my quick reading of it as being satirical, if anything. How can she be taken seriously as a presidential candidate? Consider the calculus she made to engineer her Senate seat. In the year 2000, only CA and NY met the two criteria she would require: a Democratic state with sex appeal. Both CA and NY went Democratic by at least 60% in each of the two previous presidential elections, ’96 and ’92, and both could be expected to fall in line, as they did, for Al Gore, The Human Dialtone. Thus, neither state was likely to have strong opposition (remember, the pre-9/11 Giuliani was not an attractive candidate). As candidates, Lazio hurt himself more than Hillary helped herself. And only NY and CA are stages large enough to satisfy her. “The Senator from Arkansas” just doesn’t leave you panting quite the same way. Neither Feinstein nor Boxer was up in 2000, and Hillary wouldn’t go after one of them in a primary anyway, so get Bill, Daschle and others to lean on poor old Moynihan until he steps aside, begrudgingly saying a few nice words before putting on his slippers and easing gently into the long good night.
Nationally, I hope I am correct when I conclude that Hillary does not have sufficiently high appeal, outside a handful of states (some of which, to be fair, pull a lot of electoral votes) to encourage her to run. The red and blue map of 2000 would likely cut more deeply against in ’04 in than it did against Gore in ’00 (New Mexico, Nevada, Missouri, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, about 72 votes in all, would be tough), and all the data I’ve seen suggest her presence on the ticket would pull more of both money and votes against her than for her. Thus, and this is the key with Hillary, the probability of victory is not sufficiently high for her to risk losing her seat in the Senate, where she will be nicely placed to become minority leader after 2004 with a view toward running the Senate, God help us, some number of years later. That is quite an achievable scenario, and one we all must work diligently to ensure never comes to pass.
Keep up the fine work.
— Daniel Burns
MOTHER OF THE YEAR
Re: Randy Nemko’s Are White Males Getting Shortchanged?:
As a mother of four white males, ages 18, 20, 21, 23, I’d like to thank you for publishing what I have seen over the last 20 years. From church league basketball to Little League to the Texas Sailing Circuit, the white males have not been able to compete without making allowances for females. However, without fail, the girls have had in addition to the mixed competition “girls only” competitions. Never has there ever been a “male only” competition — they have all been invaded by girls.
Now, my sons are in much more important competitions, those for colleges and jobs. What a travesty! My second son, a junior honor student at UVA, was recently lucky enough to be interviewed for an internship by several New York investment banking firms. For one particular firm, he was one of 12 being interviewed — 7 women and 5 males. He was the only white male. The good news was that he was offered the position. The sad news was that his white male friends with equally good or better gradepoint averages than several of the females did not receive even an interview. And, at this moment we are awaiting news of college acceptances for my youngest son. Here’s hoping that he is one of the white male minority accepted. Thank you again for acknowledging the plight of a not-so-new minority.
— Nancy Moncrief
FRANCE IN A DIFFERENT LIGHT
Re: R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.’s How Very French:
Just read your piece on French reluctance, in the war on terror.
I lived in France during 1995 when the entire French nation was focused on the Kelkal group of terrorists, to about the same degree as Americans are currently focused on their own crop. The French had a determination to root out these thugs (they called the program “Vigipirate”) that went way beyond anything I’ve seen in the USA, even since 9/11. One could see substantial security everywhere — things like no trashcans, which cannot be implemented here — and many people paying close attention, watching for threats. Despite your claims about French anti-Semitism, such an attitude, surely no worse than its American counterpart, did not keep the nation from being appalled and disgusted when the Kelkal group attacked a Hebrew primary school, in Lyon. The French police finally cornered the Kelkal gang in Lyon, and dispatched them.
The French are tough on terror — Vichy was no worse than what would happen here, under similar circumstances. The French are much more realistic about how to be tough, against current styles of terror, than we are. There is no reason to believe that France’s reluctance to invade Iraq is conditioned by anti-Semitism, a non-bellicosity hang-up, etc. For a discussion of contemporary terror and how to fight it, see the paper “Three Can Keep A Secret If Two Are Dead,” on my network site.
— M.A. Faia
I feel that your painting of the administration as “bully boys” is misguided and oversimplified. What you seemingly fail to recognize is that regardless of whether or not we forcibly remove the regime in Iraq, the U.S. will still be targeted for terrorist attacks. If we don’t run Saddam and his minions to ground, it will be viewed as a major sign of weakness by our enemies, and enhearten them to greater effort.
As we will remain Israel’s ally, we will continue to be categorized as anti-Muslim and a holy target by those who would eradicate us just as they would the Jews. Damned if we do — yes, but as long as we are the preeminant power on earth, such will always be the case.
This is the new world condition: eradication of the means of nuclear weaponry and WMDs for the greater good, or face the possibility of their turning up in our own backyard.
— Michael Schweitzer