Reader Comments
Issue 100 - January 30, 2008

Editor: Very nice job of synthesizing and “diplomatizing” the case in your editorial, “Conservatives Lose.” I'm sure I'm not the only one who would like to see the raw responses from the elder Young Americans for Freedom survey reported there and upon which you based the article. Neal Freeman

[Editor responds: The originals of the responses appear in the lead editorial of this issue.]

Editor: Your comments in “Conservatives Lose” about Ron Paul are excellent and insightful. We know Rep. Paul can not win but if he gets some candidates dropping from the race Paul will gain visibility which will be great for the airing of conservative ideas. Ron Paul is the only candidate talking about sound economics ideas vs. the massive expansion of the Federal Government under Hillary, Obama, Huckabee and others. The free lunch sounds good to many voters and some industries but the ultimate price is very high. Low economic growth, stifling regulation and an erosion of our ability to compete internationally are the inevitable results. Keep up the good fight and we will rise again. Bob Luddy

Editor: In your recent article, "Conservatives Lose" you say: "Except for foreign policy, Paul is very much in the Goldwater and Reagan conservative tradition." This statement is a generalization at best, and at worst, a complete falsehood. First, Reagan was a huge supporter of the "War on Drugs", while Ron Paul not only thinks that the war is unnecessary, but wants to go a step farther with legalizing marijuana. Reagan would be appalled. Second, in April of '05 Paul voted against restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. Third, he voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. He also voted NO on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration, under the guise of freedom of speech--the flag being the only thing more patriotic than Reagan himself. In addition, he opposes the death penalty, despite the fact that Reagan was a supporter of capital punishment. He also voted NO twice on a Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. Finally, the "except for foreign policy" statement is ridiculous. Foreign policy was such a major component of the Reagan legacy. It would be akin to me saying, except for my lack of ability to throw a touchdown pass, I'm just like Dan Marino. Furthermore, I am surprised that Barry Goldwater is still referred to as a Conservative icon. Goldwater is not a true representation of conservatism. Not only was he pro-abortion, he was also a supporter of Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell". In addition, he backed Clinton during the Whitewater investigation. Mike Faulk, Lake Charles, LA

Editor: Regarding "Conservatives Lose," the only one in the race even close to Ronald Reagan's views is Fred Thompson. I can't figure out if the way he is campaigning is his natural style or if he just doesn't want to be President strongly. I wish that there was someway to light a fire under him to get him nominated. Anyone else in the race and conservatism goes backwards. Republicans did not lose because of the war, they lost for not doing what they were sent to Washington to do since 1994. I am so sick of hearing the term "bi-partisan". The idea is to get conservative things done; period! I don't care if it's bi-partisan or we have to run over liberals with a steam roller. Tom Bosse, Needville, Texas

Editor: “Conservatives Lose” does it for me. I’d call it the “Strange Case of Mitt Romney.” If he's "the empty suit", then why have super conservatives who know him up close—Congressman Tom Tancredo, Joe Arpaio (Arizona legend), Hugh Hewitt, ACU's David Keene, Ann Coulter, et al. deigned to endorse him? These are impressive endorsements. Then there's the issue of why the progressives are ALL IN UNISON, hating Romney (lefty Susan Estrich said she'd throw a party upon his defeat.) I conclude that they're spinning (magnifying) his so called weakness. Why wasn't Moe Udall peppered with the "Mormon" issue when he ran in 1976? And what of Harry Reid? They're being selective about Romney because they fear him. Methinks the progressives protest too much. Al, Lemon Grove

Editor: Your article "Conservatives Lose" is excellent, but I do wish to hen-peck you just a little; "talk is cheep" you wrote! Perhaps it was a well deserved play on words, but then again the tenor of the article makes me think not. May God Bless You, J.R. Breneman, Nongnaak, Thailand

Editor: Regarding "Conservatives Lose," in Romney you have a sincere, honest, honorable conservative. If you want change in government from the current establishment, he is your man. His heart is in the right place and if you listen carefully to what he says and not take it out of context he is the most conservative of all the current crop. He always answers every question, he does not stammer and stutter trying to evade the questions. He will be good for the country. Once he gives his word you can count on it. If you study the supposed flip flops and read all the way to the bottom line you can see that he is sincere and has not flip flopped. He has changed his mind on subjects, but unlike McCain and Huckabee has never flip flopped. Please be more objective in your analysis of this good man. Tom Kerr

Editor: I stopped reading your article "Conservatives Lose," when the writer questioned Romney's sincerity and noted his narrow win in Michigan, 39% to 30% for the nearest rival. That's a narrow win? Let's face it. Romney seems to have inherited the hate target now about to be surrendered by George Bush. The press and the DEMS are scared of Romney, and that's why they keep trying to write him off. Are you on their side? Eleanor Gabriel, Osprey FL

Editor: Regarding "Conservatives Lose," despite Reagan's 11th commandment the airwaves are filled with talk show hosts and politicians arguing whether a particular candidate is a REAL conservative or is he practicing "Identity Politics" or "Populism". Yet I don't see Rush Limbaugh, Rich Lowry, Sean Hannity or a list of others stepping up and running for office. I also don't see anyone defining what it means to be a conservative. I hear a lot of attacks against Mike Huckabee, with charges that he raised taxes. But when these attacks are made I don't hear that his record was really investigated. He says that he cut taxes 94 times, and was under court order to fix the schools and the roads. So with the taxes that were raised what was the money spent on? What were the results and was it a one time expenditure? Recent news that his schools went from 49th to 8th is the kind of government that I would like to have. But I digress from my original point. What I am not hearing from anyone is what does it mean to be a conservative. So I propose the following: Come up with a list of say the top 21 things that define a conservative. Then go to the candidates web sites and see how they stack up against the gold standard. So let’s say that Huckabee matches 18 of the 21. You would then contact the Governor, and see if you can steer him to conform to all 21. You then have him sign a Govern as a Conservative Pledge. The two of you would hold a joint news conference / rally to explain your findings. You would express that the ACU is not endorsing a particular candidate, but giving on OBJECTIVE measure of the candidates. Once elected it would be very easy to hold the Presidents feet to the fire! Please consider this and help to unite the Republican Party behind the individual that becomes our nominee. I think Huckabee/McCain sounds good. Michael Maylen, Westfield, IN

[Editor replies: Actually ACU created such a questionnaire at http://www.conservative.org/pressroom/2007/presidentialquestionnaire.htm]

Editor: Regarding "Conservatives Lose," do you have side-by-side comparisons of where each presidential candidate stands on the major issues? Also, do you rank them in order of degree of conservativeness? Thanks for your help. Pat

[Editor replies: see reference in the previous letter]

Editor: Bill Sizemore is right in his “Public Employee Union Cheating.” No one should donate to political groups with other people’s money without permission or given the choice to select the party they favor. Also Unions should not be allowed to deprive people of the secret ballot. This is un-American. Keep up the good fight. I am a widow of a labor union official who shared these same principles. Granny Pott

Editor: Thanks to Bill Sizemore in his “Public Employee Union Cheating” for taking up this battle. We wish he was in Ohio. Greig McDonald

Editor: Yeaaaaaaa! I am on the side of Paul Driessen in his “Adapting To Climate Change.” However, we must find a better way to present outstanding scientist supporting this belief with their calculations, letting the world better know there are two sides to this concern. Bob Bailey

Editor: The article "Global Cooling?" by Dennis Avery, includes the following: "Bob Carter, a paleoclimatologist from Australia, notes that the earth also had strong global warming between 1918 and 1940. Then there was a long cooling period from 1940 to 1965." However, differentiating between winter and summer could draw a completely different picture on the warming between 1918 and 1940, as it has been discussed by: http://www.arctic-warming.com. Another example is the four decade global cooling that started in winter 1939/40 with a 'bang', with extreme winter temperatures all over the Northern Hemisphere, but particularly the coldest winter in North-western Europe for more than 110 years, see: http://www.seaclimate.com. Not only IPCC's, but also skeptic's claims, as by Richard Lindzen, would gain much weight, if they could clearly explain the two major climatic shifts during the 20th Century, the sudden commencement of (1) Arctic warming in winter 1918/19, and (2) Global cooling in winter 1939/40. Best regards A. Bernaerts