|  Reader
Comments
Editor:
Your editorial on "Future Conservative Leadership," is
well and timely framed. Let's hear more about Sen. George Allen
and Gov. Mark Sanford. Allbest. Neal F
Editor: In your editorial, you mentioned that Charles Cook said
2008 will be the first election since 1928 that no incumbent president
or vice president is on the ballot. Very wrong. In 1952, Ike and
Nixon beat Stevenson and Sparkman, none of whom was an incumbent
pres or VP. Best. Lee Edwards, The Heritage Foundation
Editor: It is a certainty that Mr. Frist has a lot to answer for
after telling the Conservatives to stop sending letters and e-mails
concerning the Judiciary Committee's choice about Mr. Specter, that
the committee would decide. Well, we question if we don't pay his
and their salary. Berniece Evans
Editor: In regard to your story on future conservative leaders,
certainly George W. Bush and most of the Republicans in the House
and Senate except for Ron Paul of Texas are NOT conservatives. They
seem to try to out liberal the Democrats with bigger government
and deficit spending. The Republicans must run a TRUE conservative
in 2008 or a good number of conservative Republicans will look for
alternatives in third party candidates or not vote, especially for
President, at all. If the party continues to abandon its conservative
base as it has done since Bush I, a moderate Democrat will certainly
back in to the White House. Maybe this is what is needed to return
the Republicans to their former conservative principles. The Republicans
have abandoned the principals that attracted me to their cause and
I have voted Libertarian since 1992. Ronald Kabacinski, Saline,
Michigan
Editor: I am frustrated to the point of exasperation by the ineptitude
and futility of the Conservative movement of recent decades. In
the last election, we saw how important "values" are to
the People (the Masses); for heaven's sake, the time is NOW for
"Constitutional" Conservatism; not a year from now. A
year from now may be too late. This is NOT the time for small thinkers;
act now or fold your tents and go home in shame for what might have
been!!!!!! Frank (Nalcrest, Fl.)
Editor:
Regarding you editorial on future conservative leaders, I seem to
recall a study a few years ago indicating that in congressional
races any generic woman versus any generic man had a few percentage
point advantage simply because she was a woman (I'm thinking it
was as much as 3-5%), or maybe it was just Republican women versus
Republican men. Anyway, if indeed Hillary gets the Dem nod, can
we afford to give up those moderate Republican women voters that
will likely go her way on their apparent "principle" of
getting a first woman president elected?
Your
column only analyzed the male options on the Republican side. Why
no female options? Let's neutralize both the woman factor and the
black/minority factor and nominate someone like Dr. Condi Rice (assuming
she's pro-life, which I’ve heard she is not, and is conservative
enough for you) or Laura Bush (she's more popular than her husband,
anyway, and she got her jobs without her husband's help---besides,
if the Clintons can run like a team, why can't the Bush's?)? I'd
be interested in a column listing any other conservative women in
Congress or governors who may be long shot possibilities. Maybe
we can discover an American Maggie Thatcher? Best Regards, Shawn
Loy
Editor: WOW! John Plecnik (in his article, "Value Voters Want
Conservative Court") may have received a 4.0 in Constitutional
Law, but he needs to do better than a 2.0 in reality if he was serious
in promoting Ken Starr for the Supreme Court. While I believe Starr
would be very capable, he is carrying way to much baggage from the
Clinton days. He would be "Borked"..........The first
thing Bush will have to do is to fill the vacant Chief's chair.
There are clearly two men on the court who can fill that position.
Then, he should go after a conservative who is not as well known
as Starr. He might even appoint Ted Olson for the first round. Olson
presents himself very will and would probably be confirmed. After
that he can go for more conservative judges. This will take time.
The liberals, Republican and Democrats alike, will have to be eased
into this. Regards, Jim Byrnes
Editor: Daniel Pipes’ article indicated how the people of
the Netherlands have reacted to the murder of one of their citizens.
It is an attitude that should have been adopted by every country
in the world that has been hit by the murderous, treacherous Muslim
citizens who have gained entry to our countries by falsely representing
themselves. I do not need to hear any idiotic defense from marshmallow
minded people about the innocent Muslims in our midst. If you will
read this email properly you will see that I speak of the (MURDEROUS,
TREACHEROUS MUSLIMS) in our midst, not Muslims generally. If you
write in to complain after I have clearly spelled this out, then
you will be found guilty of interjecting on behalf of the Murderous,
Treacherous Muslims in our midst. Cora Brisebois, Canada
Editor:
Here we go again. The compromise and passage of what is called an
intelligence law is simply another bill that does nothing but create
more federal bureaucracy and put more power in the hands of the
federal government. True conservatives should be both appalled and
worried about the direction of the country. I hope the ACU will
take an aggressive stance against this last minute compromise and
passage of the bill. We need to put more pressure on so called conservatives
and the president as well. Sincerely, Anthony Buzzelli
Editor: What is your take on Free Speech Zones? Do they infringe
upon our first amendment rights? Why, or Why not? Are they justifiable?
Why? I have been researching this issue and cannot seem to find
any position that views these zones as necessary in certain circumstances.
Any fact, articles, or web sites you can direct me to will be very
helpful. Miriam Kaesekamp, Student at Yuba College, CA (Editor:
Can anyone help her?)
Email
the Editor |
