Letters to the Editor: Aug. 28-Sept. 1

Liberals for the GOP Nod?

I am ever amazed by the short attention span of supposedly intelligent people. That leftist snake-in-the-grass Lieberman supports President Bush on just one issue and right away somebody wants him on the Republican ticket [“Giuliani-Lieberman? Never,” Aug. 14, 2006].

Speaking of leftist snakes-in-the-grass, or better yet liberals-in-sheep’s-clothing, let’s not forget Rudy Giuliani (as you pointed out), John McCain and the always charming Mayor Bloomberg of NYC. If Republicans go for any of these closet Democrats, they get what they deserve.

The Republicans have never been very smart. Right now they are running scared because of all the administration’s bad press. Being professional politicians, many are ready to dive to the left for re-election, and though many voters are not the sharpest knives in the drawer, that tactic will only bring a lack of respect that the turncoat always gets. All the voters aren’t stupid, and the red states are still there.

—James Huggins
Memphis, Tenn.

Ronald Reagan would not even recognize the Grand Old Party today! I doubt if either a young Barry Goldwater or the late Bob Taft would either. Not only is this a shame, but it is also very dangerous to our national security and our very way of life—our very survival as a nation!

Newt Gingrich is making the right kind of noises now, but will he stay the course? Or will he fold again, as he did after the success of the Contract with America when he sat down for a photo op with Bill Clinton and was never the same Newt again?

God help us if we get a nut case like McCain as a GOP candidate in ’08. The Republicans seem intent on just promoting their incumbents in an almost incestuous manner and will not listen to anyone who does not agree with them.

—R.H. Irish
Edmond, Okla.

You could not be more correct. Old Joe and his support of “comprehensive” immigration reform would spell the dissolution of our nation. And Rudy, well, we afford due process for those who commit the most inhuman of acts in our society, why should not the most helpless and innocent be shown the same deference?

As for those who have no regard for the sanctity of this nation and mock the sacrifice of those who gave their “last full measure of devotion” to establish and preserve this nation, root them out at the polls and let them prosper at the hands of those they truly serve. Thank you for what you do. Continue to sound the clarion call, for this nation will not long endure on its present course.

—Joe Clement
Trophy Club, Tex.

We are rather disappointed in your vehement stand against the possibility of a Giuliani presidential run. Rudy does, true, have some viewpoints that sound a bit liberal. However, these stands are by no means of a “flaming” nature, nor too far at odds with some conservative views.

He is fiscally conservative, and his leadership during the 9/11 crisis and since then would make him a lot stronger than anyone else considering a GOP run. Stronger in that he would surely put America, its citizens and its safety before a pipe dream of “one world” and spreading democracy where democracy is the last thing wanted by the citizens of the targeted nations. American voters need a candidate who puts our nation first and foremost, and if closing borders and becoming “politically incorrect” by “profiling” is what it takes, so be it.

—Dorothy Johannes
Bullard, Tex.

HE Unfair to Antiwar Liberal Ned Lamont

Interesting that you use terms like “left-wing jihad” and “crazy” to describe Ned Lamont and his supporters, of which I am one [“Lamont’s Victory Is Democrats’ Loss,” by David A. Keene, Aug. 21, 2006]. Typical right-wing character assassination, another reason I left the Republicans (and, after 25 years, the conservative movement) to support Lamont. I guess anyone who opposes the war is automatically an ultra-left-wing Bin Ladenite terrorist. That’s the political spectrum now, according to Human Events. “Moderates” support President Bush, “ultra-left-wing Jihadist terrorist Democrats” do not. Your political spectrum is like a computer bit—on or off. Either you agree completely or you are a terrorist. Well, in many ways I’m still a Republican (except that I don’t support the war). There is no longer any room in the Republican Party for someone who opposes the war. There’s hardly a place in the Democratic Party either, unless you support someone like Lamont. I’m a one-issue voter now. . . .

The war in Iraq is unjust. It is a fantastic drain on the Treasury. It is a quagmire without end, and it serves (primarily) Israel’s interest, not ours. I have nothing against Israel. However, I have no desire to send my sons to subdue Israel’s enemies. Israel’s self defense is Israel’s responsibility, not mine. How about a foreign policy in America’s interest for a change? I’m not interested in democratizing the world by force. Forcing freedom on people—how oxymoronic.

—Mike Stamper
Windsor, Conn.