Letters to the Editor
-
I Can't Think of a Clever Title, OK?
Fortunatly, where I live is still not as bad as some of the places further south, but I have no doubt all it would take is another republican win to change that. I take issue with the conservative movement because they are run by religious extremists trying to take my freedoms away. I have no doubt in my mind that if you got control of the whole country that you would do that everywhere. Just look at the Massachussettes gay marraige ruling, or the Oregon assisted suicide law, or California's legalizing medical marijuana, you people believe in "states rights" until a state does something you don't like, then you have to pass a constitutional amendment banning it!
I doubt this person and I would agree on many things (other than that Bush sucks; the tie which seemingly binds us all), but this is a very valid complaint on his (or her? I didn't check) part. Let New York be New York, and let California be California, but by the same token, don't mess with Mississippi or Wyoming. Why have 50 states if they're all going to be held to some unitary standard of, well, we'll call it Policy Correctness (so as to avoid offending the liberal-left majority at this site)? Federalism has to apply equally to the red state enthusiasms of Louisiana and the blue state pecadilloes of Rhode Island, or it means flippin' nothing. And I frankly like the idea of a legally & politically diverse nation, where if I don't care for the socio-political mores of one section of which, I may move to another that is more befitting of a person of my belief system. That is how this nation was intended to be, and that is bloody damn well how it ought to be, and to remain being. And all you relativists who think that is merely a matter of my personal, subjective opinion can, well, you know what to do (irrespective of its anatomical improbability).
-
I think Rudy misread the directions.
The bottle clearly states: PLAY HARD WITH THE BASE, do NOT KISS THE BASES ASS.
Poor Rudy, as GWB would say, no zealot left behind!
-
His real A word is Adultery- and he is excommunicated because of it
It is ironic that a man who cannot take communion in his church, because he is, according to them, living in sin with Judy Nathan, who he paraded around in his wife's face, in front of the kids, is claiming some Catholic or Christian standing. He is not a religious man, hasn't been in recorded history at least since adolescence. His pedophile priest friend helped him skirt church laws and get an annullment of his first marriage on the grounds that they were second cousins- a fact he knew when he initially married them and ruled inconsequential. Giuliani has no sense of family values. Plus he is an insecure megalomaniac.
And a guy who moved the emergency control unit TO the World Trade Center, after the first WTC bombing, making it impotent during the second one has no claim on being strategically savvy enough to deal with terrorism. I don't know a single NYC firefighter or EMT who would vote for him after his post 9-11 performance, and I work with a lot of them.
-
California Repubs unahappy with "liberal" Schwarzenneger; Might Giuliani disappoint too?
On June 25 conservative syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak published a column titled "Is Arnold a Republican?"
The topic of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger may seem unrelated to how evangelicals respond to Rudy Giuliani, but as a California native I believe this letter illustrates a valid concern on the part of Republicans, and the religious right in particular should find my point worthy of contemplation.
In the California recall election Republican voters had a choice for another candidate with a stellar conservative record, the experience Schwarzenegger lacked, and the moral values to pass muster with the conservative-values litmus test (pro-life, pro-marriage, pro-family). Californians, including many evangelicals, nevertheless chose Gov. Schwarzenegger over state Sen. Tom McClintock for the powerful post as governor — not once but twice. Now those same individuals lament that Gov. Schwarzenegger isn't conservative enough, and long-time supporters are openly critical of his "post-partisan" leadership record.
California voters knew when we elected Gov. Schwarzenegger that we were dealing with a charismatic figure with a questionable moral history of allegedly unwanted sexual come-ons. Still, Californians voted for Schwarzenegger knowing he wasn't the most conservative or experienced candidate in the race. We got what we asked for, and now many evangelicals, among others, are feigning shock and dismay at the outcome (what with striking peace with labor and pursuing the issue of global warming more vigorously than some liberals).
Were Schwarzenegger's early Republican supporters too star-struck to pay attention? Did the religious conservatives who backed him fail to notice that Schwarzenegger hails from a Kennedy marriage and a liberal Hollywood lifestyle? Did socially conservative Republicans honestly expect Schwarzenegger to check his liberal belief system at the Capitol door?
I believe California's experience is illustrative of the false electoral assumption we're about to make at the national level.
Should Rudy Giuliani become the Republican presidential candidate of choice, Republicans should not be surprised if Giuliani governs the nation in keeping with his own lifestyle, and not necessarily in keeping with the expectations of his socially conservative backers.
Meanwhile, Congressman Ron Paul hasn't left his wife of some 50 years, is pro-life, hasn't estranged his five children and 17 grandchildren, hasn't hunted down young interns for his own devious pleasures, hasn't accepted the lucrative congressional pension plan, has never voted to raise his own pay, has never accepted a government-paid junket, and hasn't even voted to raise taxes during his many years of service. In 1976, in fact, Dr. Paul was one of only four Republican congressmen to endorse Ronald Reagan for president. If this isn't conservative enough, nobody in line for the presidency is, and the Christian leadership who argue to the contrary have another agenda in mind if they prove willing to set aside the candidate who exemplifies genuine family values in exchange for the Republican equivalent of Bill Clinton.
Yet it is doubtful Dr. Paul has a shot at the presidency.
Which begs the question: In every state or Federal election there is always at least one competent candidate with a less-than-scandalous record. So why is it that Americans, Republican and Democrat alike, unfailingly elect the candidate that seems to have walked the most controversial path to power? Why is it that we are so easily enamored with the "bad boys" of politics who charm us with their personalities, woo us with their promises, and yet rarely pass the walk-the-talk test once in office?
After all the costly controversy that has gone on in this country under President Clinton and now under President G.W. Bush, you would think that the electorate would be ready for some solid, no-nonsense governance.
Are we?
God forbid we treat the upcoming presidential election as just another high school prom king and queen popularity contest. There's too much riding on the tenuous world stage to make yet another wishful choice at the polls. A careless selection could literally mean the difference between nuclear war or a return to peace.
It's time we took our electoral homework seriously. If that means looking past the conservative or liberal media darlings, so be it.