- The Washington Times - Wednesday, November 16, 2005

Ellen Sauerbrey’s voice should be heard

The Washington Times editorial “Confirm Ellen Sauerbrey” (Oct. 25) clearly identified Mrs. Sauerbrey’s many qualifications as a nominee for assistant secretary of state for population, refugees and migration. During the confirmation hearings, senators and the public may consider another important point.

Critics have trivialized Mrs. Sauerbrey’s complex views on women’s issues worldwide. They bully from the “pro-life vs. pro-choice” pulpit while ignoring Mrs. Sauerbrey’s record as U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women

Mrs. Sauerbrey consistently has displayed an unwavering commitment to raising awareness of human trafficking. She has spoken frequently and eloquently against this horrific crime, demanding of the United States and countries around the world that the cries of innocent victims must be heard.

Women and children trafficked into the United States for the sex trade are refugees in the most desperate sense. As assistant secretary of state for population, refugees and migration, Mrs. Sauerbrey would continue to speak for those who are silenced.

DAVID R. BANNON

Charlotte, N.C.

‘Judicial imperialism’

White House strategist Karl Rove’s speech to the Federalist Society, in which he slammed court activism, was a “slam-dunk” (“Rove slams court activism in speech to lawyers’ group,” Nation, Friday) . “Judicial imperialism” is certainly at odds with the U.S. Constitution, and when carried too far, it is un-American. It has not only dangerously divided American society, but, as Mr. Rove said, has “created a sense of disenfranchisement among a very large segment of American society.” Mr. Rove’s comment that “Issues not addressed by the Constitution should be decided by elections, rather than by nine lawyers in robes,” seems to be the essence of a sound judicial philosophy.

It was necessary to shift the courts to the right because too many decisions have been questionable and “fundamentally out of touch with our Constitution.” I think the legal reasoning in the Roe v. Wade decision, for instance, was fundamentally flawed because a right to privacy does not guarantee a woman an abortion on demand, unless her life is at stake.

The liberal media will try to downplay the correct shift of the courts and continue to discredit, hector and embarrass President Bush. The failed nomination of Harriett Miers is a prime example of the liberal press’s handiwork. The obvious mistake was hyped way out of proportion.

DONALD RICE

Silver Spring

Bush fights back

I was very happy to hear President Bush finally fire back at revisionist Democrats during his Veterans Day speech (“Bush rips Iraq war critics,” Page 1, Saturday). In my opinion, it was late in coming and should have been stronger. However, I understand that Mr. Bush wanted to bring a new tone to Washington. The problem with that is that the Democrats have taken advantage of Mr. Bush’s virtue and have had open season on him, his policies, his Cabinet, the military and the war. The Democrats have been able to make outrageous accusations, which have gone unchecked by the major media, and, as the saying goes, “Repeat a lie often enough and people will eventually believe it.”

If the president is still committed to the war on terror — as I know he is, and thank God he is — he should realize that the war is also being fought in the media. Mr. Bush needs to join that battle also. He or his representatives should have daily press conferences and name the names of those who made big and tough statements post-September 11 who now are opposing his efforts. They should quote those Democrats who spoke tough then but now whine and spew venom on our troops and our country’s name and standing in the world. Mr. Bush should reveal these people and what they really are without using United Nations psychobabble. He should not use words like “misguided” or “revising.” He should say what we all know he means, words that include “liars” and “hypocrites.”

I wish Mr. Bush would do this. I am tired of the Democrats (whose symbol should be changed from the elephant to the chicken wind vane) tear our country apart.

JOHN ROBIN RICE

Columbus, Ohio

Congressional priorities

The congressional Democrats and some liberal Republicans are bent on forcing President Bush to announce a date and timetable for American troops to withdraw from Iraq (“Senate rejects pullout timeline,” Page 1, yesterday). In my opinion, that would play into the hands of the Islamic terrorists, who would adjust their military plans accordingly. Instead, I would like to see these congressional liberals finally agree to allow the building of more oil refineries and drilling for oil in Alaska and other parts of America. That would have the effect of decreasing our dependency on Middle East oil and increasing our supply, lowering oil and gas prices for the average American.

In my estimation, these congressional liberals are already about 30 years late in implementing this simple action, which any logically thinking member of Congress should already have done to keep America free and economically sound.

JOHN A. MALAGRIN

Baltimore

Kilgore: Not conservative enough

I must respond to John S. Gray’s Friday letter with regard to the recent Virginia elections. Mr. Gray, although entitled to his opinion, offers a typically liberal — and decidedly wrong — analysis of why Jerry Kilgore lost the election and why the Republican turnout statewide was so low.

Although Mr. Gray is correct in pointing out that President Bush had little to do with Virginia’s election results, his analysis that the Republican ticket was “too far right for moderate Republicans and independents” is incorrect. Mr. Gray attempts to bolster his case by mentioning the close results in the lieutenant governor and attorney general races.

First, Mr. Kilgore lost because he was not a conservative, and the base knew it. This explains his disastrous performance in Fairfax County and poor results in many Republican “exurb” strongholds. Evidence of Mr. Kilgore’s moderation include his support for regional taxing authorities and his refusal to sign a no-tax pledge. Much the same could be said for Mark Early’s loss in 2001.

In addition, Mr. Kilgore ran a poor campaign, offering conservatives no issue around which to rally — as did George Allen on parole and James Gilmore on the car tax. Mr. Allen and Mr. Gilmore are more conservative than Mr. Kilgore, so to whom do we attribute their gubernatorial success?

Second,therelatively mediocre performances by Bob McDonnell and Bill Bolling can be attributed to Mr. Kilgore’s lack of coattails, which directly contributed to conservatives staying home. History shows that a weak presidential ticket often leads to mediocre performances in congressional races. The same applies at the state level. Nonetheless, both apparently have won. Given that Mr. McDonnell and Mr. Bolling are more conservative than Mr. Kilgore, their victories refute Mr. Gray’s thesis.

Finally, the left’s — and many moderates’ — claims that the far-right wing is in control of the local, state and national levels of government strains credulity. Is that why Gov. Mark Warner was able to pass a huge tax increase? Was Sen. John Chichester — that pillar of right-wingdom — following the far-right’s orders in pushing this ill-advised tax increase through the legislature? Is this why government spending continues to soar at the state and federal levels in this country? In fact, the “far right” would like to cut domestic spending to the bone, and taxes as well. This is hardly occurring.

It is important that the public understand the reasons for electoral results, but faulty liberal analysis will only confuse them.

ROBERT BRANTLEY

Alexandria

LOAD COMMENTS ()

 

Click to Read More

Click to Hide