- The Washington Times - Sunday, May 30, 2004

The Janus-faced candidate

I’ll leave it to others to debate the issue of a Kerry double standard (“Kerry’s double standard,” Editorial, Thursday). That said, I will tell you this: I, for one, am glad the presumptive Democratic nominee for president has finally decided to accept his party’s nomination in July. For one, what if President Bush had postponed his September nomination? The whole thing simply didn’t compute. What does make sense is tweaking the old adage “Money is the mother’s milk of politics.” Sen. John Kerry, in his trial balloon, seems to have moved the needle to a new level. Today it should read, “Money is the mother’s DNA of politics.”

DENNY FREIDENRICH

Laguna Beach, Calif.

Thursday’s editorial “Kerry’s double standard” not only serves as an expose of Sen. John Kerry’s character, but it also provides insight into the extreme left wing of the Democratic Party. What Mr. Kerry was planning to do would make those who plotted to defraud shareholders at Enron and Global Crossing proud. It was a brilliant financial scheme, but it would have benefited only Mr. Kerry.

When watchdog groups and Mr. Kerry’s political opponents cried foul and the Republicans threatened to hold a rally at the same time as the Democratic National Convention demanding equal time from TV networks, he backed down. After all, if he weren’t going to accept his party’s nomination at the convention, then the event would be nothing more than a political rally unworthy of nationwide television coverage.

Even worse than that, the fact that he was seriously considering such a move tells me that he will use such tactics when they provide him an advantage. He believes it’s OK to twist the rules if it gives him the upper hand, so long as everybody else follows them.

Voters can add this latest convention scheme to a long list of Kerry double standards. Here are just a few examples:

• He is a Roman Catholic but has consistently voted pro-choice, even voting against banning partial-birth abortions; his church won’t allow him to take Communion while maintaining such views.

• He claims to be an advocate of a strong military, but his voting record in the Senate shows otherwise.

• He panders to environmentalists for their votes while he owns and travels in SUVs.

• He is dodging the same-sex “marriage” issue, which became law in his home state of Massachusetts. His wing of the Democratic Party favors legalizing homosexual “marriage,” but he won’t come out of the closet and support it because he knows the issue will hurt him in the polls if he does.

Voters need to know what Mr. Kerry would do as president. Would he propose higher gasoline taxes on everyone or just the wealthy? Would he gut the military or strengthen it? Would he help the environment by giving up his SUVs or just demand that everyone else do so? Would he work to overturn the ban on partial-birth abortion or follow the teachings of his church? Would he try to legalize same-sex “marriage” nationwide? Would he work to provide the level of health care insurance he enjoys as a senator or just let the rest of us “eat cake”?

So far, I can’t determine what Mr. Kerry would do as president, and that is a scary prospect.

RICHARD W. RESSLER

North Olmsted, Ohio

The call that has not come

I write in response to Robert Redding Jr.’s article on Donald Schaefer’s call for conservative Democrats (“Schaefer calls for conservative Democrats,” Page 1, Wednesday).

During the 2002 Democratic gubernatorial primary race, I ran to the right of Kathleen Kennedy Townsend. I was pro-life, pro-Second Amendment and against raising the state income tax or sales tax. I received 20 percent of the vote, with the majority of my votes from the conservative areas of Maryland.

Did I get a call from top Democratic leaders after the primary? No. I received calls from members of the Republican Party and Libertarian Party. To this day, I am still awaiting a call from someone in the Democratic Party.

Obviously, there is no place in the Maryland Democrat Party for one with a conservative view.

ROBERT FUSTERO

Silver Spring

Day after tomorrow could be warmer

It’s unfortunate that in a commentary which ridicules the scientific credibility of the outlandish movie “The Day After Tomorrow” (which was not a difficult thing to do) that Edwin Feulner should demonstrate a lack of scientific credibility on important points of fact (“Storm warning,” Commentary, Tuesday).

Mr. Feulner writes: “Let’s set the rhetoric aside and look at the facts. The average temperature measured at the Earth’s surface has risen about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the last 100 years. But satellite measurements haven’t shown a comparable trend and, in fact, show a slight cooling in the last 20 years.” The statement regarding satellite measurements is extraordinarily inaccurate. Satellite temperature measurements of lower troposphere temperatures using data from the Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) gathered by Roy Spencer of NASA and John Christy of the University of Alabama-Huntsville show a 0.7 degree centigrade per century warming trend over the period data was collected (approximately 23 years). Because this trend has emerged recently, after several re-analyses and several warm years, the previous non-warming trend is still frequently quoted by global warming skeptics. Analyses of the same data performed by other groups show a warming trend that is substantially larger, and a recently published analysis by Qiang Fu of the University of Washington finds a warming trend that is now in general accord with climate model predictions.

“The Day After Tomorrow” won’t provide anyone with new scientific insight, and may just serve to confuse the public further. But it’s important when trying to discuss the true scientific assessment of global warming that we get the basic facts right.

JAMES ACKER

Elkridge, Md.

When ‘thank you’ will do

I’m writing this to find some way to communicate the feelings I have toward the World War II veterans who have come to Washington this weekend (“WWII dedication security tight,” Page 1, Saturday). It needs writing because I and many others are socially incapable of expressing the feeling. It is a simple one of gratitude and awe: Thank you, World War II veterans.

I realized Friday afternoon that this needed to be said in writing. I was taking the Metro home from work (I am a 19-year-old intern on Capitol Hill) and found myself seated behind a man clearly here for the weekend’s events. During the 15-minute ride, not one rider said a word to him. I wondered how out of place and unappreciated this veteran felt.

When I got off the train at my stop, I considered saying something along the lines of “thank you” to him, but I decided against it. How could something so concise come off as anything but shallow?

I cannot imagine what our country (and the world) would be like today had not these men and women sacrificed so much. My generation seems incapable of communicating a profound enough gratitude, but I know that every true American of any age has the utmost respect for the accomplishments of “the greatest generation;” we just may not know how to show our respect properly.

So, I am hoping the man I saw on the subway sees this letter and understands how much he and the thousands of veterans, living or deceased, are appreciated by us folks who can do no more but silently stare at them on the train.

BENJAMIN LOGAN

Winston-Salem, N.C.

LOAD COMMENTS ()

 

Click to Read More

Click to Hide