Love Letter from Howard Dean

I received this in my e-mail box today:

Dear Radiant,

President Bush has hit a new low -- and I'm not talking about his 28% approval ratings.

Today, he ignored the majority of Americans and he defied the majority of Congress. And what's worst, he told our brave men and women in uniform that they will be the ones to pay the price.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: a Democratic president wouldn't veto that bill. We put forward a thoughtful plan and the President rejected it.

Only a Democratic victory in 2008 will ensure that this war comes to a responsible end. To ensure a Democratic victory, we have to build our election operation now -- we just can't afford to wait until there's a nominee. Make a contribution and help take back the White House today:

http://www.democrats.org/EndTheWar

When President Bush rejects a troop withdrawal plan supported by nearly two-thirds of the country, he's not working for the American people -- he's working for himself.

I get sick of this kind of letter. It leaves out so much. First, all the pork that was put in the bill to make it pass would have gone a long way to meeting the needs of our troops.


Examples of non-emergency pork-barrel spending include:

· $25 million for spinach
· $50 million for the "Capitol Hill Power Plant"
· $5 million for tropical fish
· $283 million for the Milk Income Loss Contract Program
· $74 million for peanut storage costs
· $120 million for shrimp and menhaden fishing industries
· $25 million for livestock producers
· $15 million for crop damage
· $100 million for citrus producers


Second, where does Dean get off saying the troop withdrawal plan is supported by two-thirds of American people (The percentage at the moment is 59%, not 66% for 2/3, and nobody asked me)?

Well, Dean is known for his exaggeration, and he is the head of the DNC after all. One would expect a Jackass to bray.

What are Democrats trying to accomplish?

I am an unabashed conservative. Not a Rush Limbaugh ditto-head. Not a right wingnut. Not a Phred Phelps Pflamer. Just a conservative leaning toward moderate that is trying to understand what is happening on the political scene.

I'm one of the people that Democrats would want to woo to their side. I'm not enamored with Bush, although I have supported him and do support (with only a little reservation) the war effort. I'm not happy with the leftward swing of those who call themselves conservative. I have strong feelings about social issues and care about the environment.

But I have to wonder what the Democrats are doing to attract people like me. First consider their leading presidential candidates. Hillary Clinton, based on her past baggage and association with "only the second president to be impeached in all of US history" (I'm quoting my dear husband), with her failed health care plan from the Clinton administration, and with her socialistic leanings does little to inspire trust in voters like me. She might rise to the occasion if she were elected, but she has no clue what to do with the war. Nor do the other Democratic candidates. It's complicated, but there is no "plan," as Kerry would say, on the Democrat side to end the war (nor any clear vision of the consequences of such action) outside of the "death by a thousand cuts" agenda.

Barak Obama is a man with so little experience who got lucky to be catapulted to national attention. He is more liberal than Hillary Clinton, and the church he claims to belong to has a statement of faith that appears to promote a bigoted form of reverse discrimination (everywhere you see the word "black" replace it with "white" and it could be the statement of faith of a racist white supremacist church.) Where DO the Democrats get these "leaders"? Don't they vet them first? Or maybe their leading candidates really do represent the views of the Democratic leadership. I find that possibility concerning!

Speaking of 'Death by a Thousand Cuts,' the flood of subpoenas demanded by the Democrats because of the legitimate firing of a few attorneys is this side of ridiculous. Here are some comments by Mark Davis:

What they seek to destroy is this presidency they loathe with their every breath. Mr. Gonzales has plenty to answer for, but the elevation of these attorney dismissals to a Watergate-caliber controversy is wholly without basis.

Add the irony that the voices stoking the scandal imagery are from the same congressional and journalistic outposts that have sugar-coated the Clinton years for more than a decade, and the spectacle borders on the obscene.

I've not even gotten into the shenanigans of Pelosi, (Barely had Pelosi been sworn in as Speaker of the House when the Dems began their assault on gun rights, free speech, freedom of religion, the right of bloggers to alert readers to contact Congress concerning pending legislation, and a host of other subversive legislation) Murtha and Dean, but to me they are equally disappointing for their pandering to the left wing of their party.

I'm not one of those voters who decides to skip voting in despair and disgust, but it may be that, again, I vote for the lesser of two evils in hopes that some real leadership will rise up in the next six years.