What their opinion about...
OPINION IN BRIEF
“[John McCain] should ask Obama to join him in a town meeting on lessons from Russia’s aggression. Both candidates favor NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine, perhaps Vladimir Putin’s next victim. But does Russia’s behavior cause Obama to rethink reliance on ‘soft power’ —dialogue, disapproval, diplomacy, economic carrots and sticks—which Putin considers almost an oxymoron? Does Russia’s resort to military coercion, and its arsenal of intercontinental ballistic missiles, cause Obama to revise his resistance to missile defense? Obama, unlike McCain, believes Russia belongs in the G-8. Does Obama think Russia should be admitted to the World Trade Organization? Does Obama consider Putin helpful regarding Iran?... McCain must convince voters that Obama’s complacent confidence in the taming abilities of soft power is the effect of liberalism’s scary sentimentalism about a dangerous thing, human nature, and a fiction, ‘the community of nations.’ McCain is hardly the change many people have been eagerly waiting for, but Putin is part of the change we must confront. Until Russian tanks rolled into Georgia, it seemed that not even the Democratic Party could lose this election. But it might if McCain can make it turn on the question of who is ornery enough to give Putin a convincing, deterring telephone call at 3 a.m.”
LIBERTY
“Whatever the political outcome of Russia’s invasion of Georgia, the incident has reminded American voters that in uncertain times it is dangerous to choose a rookie with no foreign policy experience and a juvenile approach to world affairs over one tempered by war who understands that U.N. resolutions might as well be written in disappearing ink. John McCain knows that peace through strength is what defeated the Soviet Union and that it’s peace through strength that will best preserve free nations and advance their interests.”
THE GIPPER
“Our military strength is a prerequisite to peace, but let it be clear we maintain this strength in the hope it will never be used, for the ultimate determinant in the struggle that’s now going on in the world will not be bombs and rockets but a test of wills and ideas, a trial of spiritual resolve, the values we hold, the beliefs we cherish, the ideals to which we are dedicated.”
FOR THE RECORD
“The prevailing wisdom 18 months or so ago was that invading Iraq had been, in retrospect, a disastrous blunder. It had led to appalling sectarian fratricide and an ever-climbing body count. Iraqi democracy was deemed a naive pipe dream. Worst of all, it was said, the fighting in Iraq wasn’t advancing the global struggle against Islamist terrorism; by rallying a new generation of jihadists, it was actually impeding it. Opponents of the war clamored loudly for pulling the plug... But what if we had known then what we know now? We know now that the overhauled counterinsurgency strategy devised by General David Petraeus—the ‘surge’ —would prove spectacularly successful, driving Al Qaeda in Iraq from its strongholds, and killing thousands of its fighters, supporters, and leaders. We know now that US losses in Iraq would plummet to the lowest levels of the war, with just five Americans killed in combat in July 2008, compared with 66 fatalities in the same month a year ago—and with 137 in November 2004. We know now that the sectarian bloodletting would be dramatically reduced, with numerous Sunni tribal leaders abandoning their former Al Qaeda allies, and Shi’ite radical Moqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army being thoroughly routed by the Iraqi military. We know now that by the summer of 2008, the Iraqi government would meet all but three of the 18 benchmarks set by Congress to demonstrate security, economic progress, and political reconciliation. And we know now that, far from being undermined by the campaign in Iraq, the wider war against Islamist violence would show significant progress, with terrorism outside Iraq’s borders having ‘in fact gone way down over the past five years,’ as Newsweek’s Fareed Zakaria noted in May—and with popular support for jihadist organizations plummeting across the Muslim world. So what does hindsight counsel today? That Iraq is a pointless quagmire—or that it is a costly but winnable war, in which patience, tenacity, and smarts have a good chance of succeeding?”
FAMILY
“The reaction of the American Left to John Edwards’s sex scandal is nothing short of flabbergasting. Since when is sex outside of marriage a disqualifier for merely speaking at a political convention? Since when is having sexual relations with that woman in your office anything wrong? Since when do we judge? The difference here seems to be that Elizabeth Edwards has cancer. So only fatal disease makes the bonds of marriage sacred? Although the last thing I want to look to be doing is making excuses for adultery—what he did was wrong—the John Edwards incident begs Americans to look in the mirror. If we think what John Edwards did with Rielle Hunter is wrong, why do we think it’s wrong? Because marriage is at the foundation of our society and we should do what we can to protect every last one? Or simply because having fun while your wife is fighting a fatal disease is a lousy thing to do? I don’t know how we can condemn John Edwards when Americans have been known to cheer for cheaters in movies, watch celebs do it all the time as a form of perverse entertainment, and even insist we’re not sure what exactly ‘marriage’ means.”
CULTURE
“Barack Obama, as Shelby Steele has written, departs from the Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton brand of politics in that he is far more sophisticated and subtle in how to play on white guilt and how to intimidate. That’s new. But the liberal content and agenda is not new, and this, blacks continue to buy en masse. The points conservatives have been hammering home for the last 20 years have not been for naught. There is increasing awareness among blacks how family breakdown is driving the social problems of the community. This is not lost on Obama. His speeches paying credence to the importance and relevance of personal responsibility are well received among blacks, but also play well to the whites he wishes to reach. But the program behind the words remains comfortably lodged on the far left. Big government answers for everything, redistribution of wealth, use of law as a tool for politics, liberal abortion policies, and legitimization of the gay agenda. The relevant question is... will black politics—black uniform support for liberals—ever change?”
SELECT READER COMMENTS
“I couldn’t agree more with David Limbaugh’s take on the race issue. I’m a white male and I wouldn’t vote for Obama in a hundred years. Not because of his race, but rather for his socialist and anti-American agenda.” —Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
“It is painfully clear that racism is alive and well in America. Unfortunately, Liberals use race, gender, class and religion as tools to further segregate our society, all the while convincing minorities that they are discriminated against. Besides, what ever would people like Jesse Jackson, Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, et al, do for a living if minorities were no longer oppressed?” —Houston, Texas
“During the primary races, on two different occasions, I watched the ‘Meet the Press’ panel discuss the race issue in this election. They, without exception, spoke of the surveys that confirmed that ‘angry white men’ would never vote for Obama and that there was still such severe racial prejudice is this country that a black man could not be elected president. When asked why 97 percent of blacks voted for Obama, this was explained away as ‘black pride.’ A white vote against Obama is prejudice; a black vote for Obama is black pride. These bright intellectuals will not consider that a white vote against Obama might be based on policy differences.” —Hillsborough, California
“[John McCain] should ask Obama to join him in a town meeting on lessons from Russia’s aggression. Both candidates favor NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine, perhaps Vladimir Putin’s next victim. But does Russia’s behavior cause Obama to rethink reliance on ‘soft power’ —dialogue, disapproval, diplomacy, economic carrots and sticks—which Putin considers almost an oxymoron? Does Russia’s resort to military coercion, and its arsenal of intercontinental ballistic missiles, cause Obama to revise his resistance to missile defense? Obama, unlike McCain, believes Russia belongs in the G-8. Does Obama think Russia should be admitted to the World Trade Organization? Does Obama consider Putin helpful regarding Iran?... McCain must convince voters that Obama’s complacent confidence in the taming abilities of soft power is the effect of liberalism’s scary sentimentalism about a dangerous thing, human nature, and a fiction, ‘the community of nations.’ McCain is hardly the change many people have been eagerly waiting for, but Putin is part of the change we must confront. Until Russian tanks rolled into Georgia, it seemed that not even the Democratic Party could lose this election. But it might if McCain can make it turn on the question of who is ornery enough to give Putin a convincing, deterring telephone call at 3 a.m.”
LIBERTY
“Whatever the political outcome of Russia’s invasion of Georgia, the incident has reminded American voters that in uncertain times it is dangerous to choose a rookie with no foreign policy experience and a juvenile approach to world affairs over one tempered by war who understands that U.N. resolutions might as well be written in disappearing ink. John McCain knows that peace through strength is what defeated the Soviet Union and that it’s peace through strength that will best preserve free nations and advance their interests.”
THE GIPPER
“Our military strength is a prerequisite to peace, but let it be clear we maintain this strength in the hope it will never be used, for the ultimate determinant in the struggle that’s now going on in the world will not be bombs and rockets but a test of wills and ideas, a trial of spiritual resolve, the values we hold, the beliefs we cherish, the ideals to which we are dedicated.”
FOR THE RECORD
“The prevailing wisdom 18 months or so ago was that invading Iraq had been, in retrospect, a disastrous blunder. It had led to appalling sectarian fratricide and an ever-climbing body count. Iraqi democracy was deemed a naive pipe dream. Worst of all, it was said, the fighting in Iraq wasn’t advancing the global struggle against Islamist terrorism; by rallying a new generation of jihadists, it was actually impeding it. Opponents of the war clamored loudly for pulling the plug... But what if we had known then what we know now? We know now that the overhauled counterinsurgency strategy devised by General David Petraeus—the ‘surge’ —would prove spectacularly successful, driving Al Qaeda in Iraq from its strongholds, and killing thousands of its fighters, supporters, and leaders. We know now that US losses in Iraq would plummet to the lowest levels of the war, with just five Americans killed in combat in July 2008, compared with 66 fatalities in the same month a year ago—and with 137 in November 2004. We know now that the sectarian bloodletting would be dramatically reduced, with numerous Sunni tribal leaders abandoning their former Al Qaeda allies, and Shi’ite radical Moqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army being thoroughly routed by the Iraqi military. We know now that by the summer of 2008, the Iraqi government would meet all but three of the 18 benchmarks set by Congress to demonstrate security, economic progress, and political reconciliation. And we know now that, far from being undermined by the campaign in Iraq, the wider war against Islamist violence would show significant progress, with terrorism outside Iraq’s borders having ‘in fact gone way down over the past five years,’ as Newsweek’s Fareed Zakaria noted in May—and with popular support for jihadist organizations plummeting across the Muslim world. So what does hindsight counsel today? That Iraq is a pointless quagmire—or that it is a costly but winnable war, in which patience, tenacity, and smarts have a good chance of succeeding?”
FAMILY
“The reaction of the American Left to John Edwards’s sex scandal is nothing short of flabbergasting. Since when is sex outside of marriage a disqualifier for merely speaking at a political convention? Since when is having sexual relations with that woman in your office anything wrong? Since when do we judge? The difference here seems to be that Elizabeth Edwards has cancer. So only fatal disease makes the bonds of marriage sacred? Although the last thing I want to look to be doing is making excuses for adultery—what he did was wrong—the John Edwards incident begs Americans to look in the mirror. If we think what John Edwards did with Rielle Hunter is wrong, why do we think it’s wrong? Because marriage is at the foundation of our society and we should do what we can to protect every last one? Or simply because having fun while your wife is fighting a fatal disease is a lousy thing to do? I don’t know how we can condemn John Edwards when Americans have been known to cheer for cheaters in movies, watch celebs do it all the time as a form of perverse entertainment, and even insist we’re not sure what exactly ‘marriage’ means.”
CULTURE
“Barack Obama, as Shelby Steele has written, departs from the Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton brand of politics in that he is far more sophisticated and subtle in how to play on white guilt and how to intimidate. That’s new. But the liberal content and agenda is not new, and this, blacks continue to buy en masse. The points conservatives have been hammering home for the last 20 years have not been for naught. There is increasing awareness among blacks how family breakdown is driving the social problems of the community. This is not lost on Obama. His speeches paying credence to the importance and relevance of personal responsibility are well received among blacks, but also play well to the whites he wishes to reach. But the program behind the words remains comfortably lodged on the far left. Big government answers for everything, redistribution of wealth, use of law as a tool for politics, liberal abortion policies, and legitimization of the gay agenda. The relevant question is... will black politics—black uniform support for liberals—ever change?”
SELECT READER COMMENTS
“I couldn’t agree more with David Limbaugh’s take on the race issue. I’m a white male and I wouldn’t vote for Obama in a hundred years. Not because of his race, but rather for his socialist and anti-American agenda.” —Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
“It is painfully clear that racism is alive and well in America. Unfortunately, Liberals use race, gender, class and religion as tools to further segregate our society, all the while convincing minorities that they are discriminated against. Besides, what ever would people like Jesse Jackson, Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, et al, do for a living if minorities were no longer oppressed?” —Houston, Texas
“During the primary races, on two different occasions, I watched the ‘Meet the Press’ panel discuss the race issue in this election. They, without exception, spoke of the surveys that confirmed that ‘angry white men’ would never vote for Obama and that there was still such severe racial prejudice is this country that a black man could not be elected president. When asked why 97 percent of blacks voted for Obama, this was explained away as ‘black pride.’ A white vote against Obama is prejudice; a black vote for Obama is black pride. These bright intellectuals will not consider that a white vote against Obama might be based on policy differences.” —Hillsborough, California