POLITICAL FUTURES

“Ronald Reagan, though derided endlessly by Democrats and media elites, won the presidency not just as a consummate showman but as the apostle of three big ideas. First, he believed that a free enterprise system is not merely more efficient than a government-run command-and-control economy—it also is far more consistent with ideals of human freedom and dignity. Second, personal liberty and personal responsibility go hand-in-hand—and are preferable to government choice and group responsibility. Third, America is a fundamentally good nation—we should be willing to stand up for it and if necessary to fight for it. Reagan’s optimism about America and devotion to freedom fueled his belief that it was necessary to defeat communism—a system that denied human freedom, denied God, suppressed free will, and sought global dominion—and that we could win if we were committed to doing that. Despite the hoots from sophisticates, Reagan proved right on all counts. His vision of ‘morning in America’ resonated with us... [Tomorrow], Americans have the opportunity to reaffirm President Reagan’s vision or to take a step back toward the vision of government and of America he fought against... [Tomorrow], Ronald Reagan’s sun can continue to shine on America. But conservatives must be willing to make that happen. They must embrace the mantra that partial sunshine is better than rain any day of the week. It’s a good time to remember Reagan’s optimism, his pragmatism, and his values. And it would be enormously gratifying to win this one for the Gipper.” —Ronald Cass

FOR THE RECORD

“If you talk to Democrats of the middle-class and upper-middle-class and (in John Heinz Kerry’s case) the neo-Gulf-emir-class, you’ll have heard the same thing a thousand times: these poor fellows in Iraq, they’re only there because they’re too poverty-stricken and ill-educated so they couldn’t become Senators and New York Times reporters and tenured [Gay] Studies professors like normal Americans do. That is, in fact, what they mean by the claim that they ‘support our troops’: they want to bring them home and retrain them so they’re not forced into taking jobs as Bush’s torturers and thugs. It’s part of the same condescension as describing soldiers as ‘our children.’ If a 22-year old intern wants to drop to the Oval Office broadloom, she’s a grown woman exercising her freedom of choice. But, if a 28-year old guy wants to serve in Iraq, he’s a poor wee misguided Grade Six drop-out who doesn’t know any better. John Kerry’s sound bite is interesting not because it’s the umpteenth self-inflicted wound by Mister Nuance but because it gets right to the heart of the Democrats’ ‘support’ for the troops.” —Mark Steyn

SELECT READER COMMENTS

(Our servers automatically delete “Reply” messages to this e-mail. To submit comments for publication or to view reader comments, link to http://PatriotPost.US/comments.asp Join the debate at the Patriot Blog.)

“In your essay, ‘The case for throwing the bums out’, you say that based on her comment about children being in a leadership role in the house, Ms. Pelosi owes an apology to the nation’s adults. I’d say she should apologize to the children!” —Miami, Florida

“I have heard ad nauseum that if the Republicans lose majorities in both Houses and a number of governorships that it will be because they deserve it. Who cares what the Republicans deserve, or what the Democrats deserve either? What’s important here is what WE deserve. We are the people who are shareholders in America. We deserve the best we can get, in terms of goods and services and the management of our enterprise.” —Austin, Texas

“I am appalled at all the calls for an apology from Senator Kerry. In a rare moment of clarity he actually said what he thinks and has been vilified for it. Senator Kerry’s comments have been the only true face of the Democrat party this election season! Senator Kerry has built his public persona since 1971 on contempt for the troops, and everyone knows it, especially us troops.” —Ft. Campbell, Kentucky

“The First Amendment does indeed guarantee ‘...the right of the people peaceably to assemble...’ with the idea that citizens may peacefully join together to petition the government. It does not guarantee anyone the right to brandish weapons in public, real or otherwise, while dressed up as an enemy of the United States. Mr. Connolly, like so many of his ilk, seems unable to understand that actions have consequences.” —Albany, California

Let us know what you think. Click here to comment on this section

< previous page |