To the Editor:
The arrogance and condescension of John Blankley’s column (The Presidential Race: A Greenwich Perspective,” March 4) is breathtaking, from its first question, “How should Greenwich vote?” to its final answer, “Greenwich will vote for Hillary.” Gee, thanks for informing us of our duty as Greenwich voters.
Sorry, but it won’t be unanimous. This old townie is voting against Hillary, even if (as I sincerely hope won’t happen) I have to hold my nose and vote for Trump. And I’m against her for all the reasons Mr. Blankley lists for voting for her.
The “stultifying legal philosophy of originalism” is the way the U.S. Supreme Court is supposed to work under our Constitution – which, unlike the progressives, I don’t regard as an outdated relic to be twisted like a pretzel to advance their agenda. The Framers must be spinning in their graves at the spectacle of the Justices finding ever more dubious “rights” hidden in the emanations and penumbras. Seems to me we need more Scalias, not fewer.
“Universal health care” could have been achieved years ago if the government had empowered the citizenry to choose our own coverage. But Hillary – going by her performance during her husband’s administration – wants to decree a one-size-fits-all package that will (among other things) force us all to subsidize every aspect of the sexual revolution, from unlimited abortion to sex-change surgery. No thanks.
Mr. Blankley’s critique of Donald Trump revolves around the probability that he’ll “waste money” and enact “tax breaks for the wealthy.” The first is interesting coming from a member of the party that’s doubled the deficit in the past seven years, while the second may give the wealthy (of whom there are plenty around here) pause. It’s also alarming to those of us who aren’t so wealthy, since Democrats seem to consider everyone not just scraping by as a bottomless well to finance their “domestic spending.” Both parties are guilty here, but at least Republicans don’t consider the entire GDP their property to be redistributed as they see fit.
To those who will inevitably ask, “Don’t you want a woman President?” my answer is (as it was eight years ago to a similar question): “Yes – but not that one.”
Anne G. Burns
Cos Cob
