By Monica Alonzo
By Stephen Lemons
By Jason P. Woodbury
By Dulce Paloma Baltazar Pedraza
By Ray Stern
By Pete Kotz
By Monica Alonzo
By New Times
We're in a real quandary: Thank you Michael Lacey for the lucid objectivity in your article on the presidential candidates ("Raging Bull," October 7). I registered as a Democrat in the Kennedy years when I was admiring their battle against organized crime and work on civil rights. With dismay I saw the Democrats eventually endorse legalized abortion with a fervor that ignored logic. A young woman who died in an abortion clinic here in Phoenix had a late-term baby aborted at the same time, who was not even mentioned as a victim in the Arizona Republic. I thought where have the ideals of the liberals disappeared to?
An amazing thing happened when George W. Bush started running for President. All the abortion rhetoric disappeared from the Republic. It's as though they knew quite well this philosophy was repugnant. With his election, the abortion rhetoric continued to be muted, justifying Bush's election on those results alone for me, a dedicated protestor of abortion propaganda in our newspapers.
Now, I (like Lacey) am in a quandary. Bush seems to have so miscalculated the results of an invasion of Iraq that I have lost my faith that he can make logical decisions. In the first debate, he demonstrated such an inability to think on his feet that I wondered if I could vote for him.
On the other hand, most Democratic candidates prove remarkably weak in opposing far left extremists. Kerry, a Catholic, says he doesn't believe in abortion, but endorses abortion rights anyway. So if we elect him, I suspect the liberals like Michael Moore and the Hollywood crowd will once again have a field day.
If liberals have no objections to the millions killed by legalized abortion each year, why would they worry about the genocide in Iraq that Saddam inflicted on his own people?
I thought Elie Weisel's opinion that Saddam needed to be stopped remarkable because of how he hates war. The majority of our country, it seems, are not blessed with the ability to reason about knotty issues. Kerry and Bush seem unable to understand the logic that an Iraqi majority is reluctant to embrace democracy after a democratic nation has bombed their country into a state of chaos.
Geraldine King, Phoenix
Clothespin your nose and vote:I found myself deeply saddened by Michael Lacey's article. Here's the shorter version: Don't vote! It only encourages them!
Mike, it's sad that both Bush and Kerry turn your stomach. I wish we had better choices, myself. But sometimes we don't have a good option, and not voting is the worst choice of all.
So put a clothespin on your nose on Election Day, Mike, go to your polling place and vote for whichever candidate you think will do the least damage in the next four years. You won't be the only one making that choice.
Me, I'll be voting for Kerry. I don't expect good government to suddenly appear under Kerry's leadership, but at least we'll have a chance of returning to normal government, instead of one so recklessly driven by incompetent ideological extremists.
Bruce Arthurs, Glendale
Talk about a constipatard: What a deal! What I got from Michael Lacey's right-leaning article was that we are not to vote at all. What I got from Rick Barrs' left-leaning article was that Arizona State University is suppressing students' political points of view because they might be too pro-John Kerry ("Forty Whacks," October 7). That ASU prez Michael Crow, in an effort to curry favor with the Bush Administration and the local political yokels, is keeping students from throwing rocks at political candidates showing up on campus for the third debate. Well, here's to Crow!
As for Lacey, what a fuck brain to not come out and say that we shouldn't vote for Bush. He's obviously the best candidate. When I saw the cover of New Times, I almost fainted, because I thought the paper was actually coming out in favor of Bush. What a great day that would have been! Finally, reason has taken over the Mother Jones of Phoenix. But, no! Lacey can't make up his noodle who to vote for, the ninny! I agree that Ralph Nadar's a conspiratard, but when it comes to Lacey, talk about a constipatard!
But let me save special venom for Barrs, who is the kind of muted but dangerous liberal whom those of us with a brain in Arizona hate. He tries to argue his lefty ideals with logic. Illogic is more like it! He actually gets all high and mighty that it was wrong of the ASU Art Museum to "balance" its exhibit. His argument over artistic integrity is bullshit, since artists are all liberal slime and deserve to be censored. Thank God, for true conservative believers like [museum director] Marilyn Zeitlin and Crow! Sometimes you must make sure the public gets what it needs to get and not just leave it to chance that the likes of artists will do the right thing. Remember, Picasso had Communist leanings. Somebody should have stopped him, just like somebody should -- and did -- stop these limp-wristed artists who submitted nothing but anti-Bush art to ASU.