High on Dean - The American Spectator | USA News and Politics
High on Dean

Re: Steve Hornbeck’s Howard Dean Attracts First Non-Stoned Supporter:

Well, your agenda is showing. I saw the report on “Scarborough” on MSNBC about an unnamed Dean campaign person qvelling blabbing to The American Spectator about getting their first “non-stoned supporter.” Please. What unnamed Dean supporter is going to say such lovely cannon fodder to you? C’mon. Seriously, did you get this directly from Karl Rove, or through some circuitous route? It started reading like an article in the Onion. In other words, about as credible as the bogus report floated by Drudge about Dean intending to fire McAuliffe, as if that is in his purview.

I don’t think trying to paint Dean as “governor Moonbeam” is going to work, but I (actually a non-stoned supporter of “Howie”) invite you to try. No doubt there’s a dossier on how to smear each Democratic candidate, and, I suppose, his supporters. Is this the best you can do with Dean? Trash his supporters as neo-hippies?

Considering Bush’s (and his daughters’) own history of alcohol abuse, I’d think I’d stay away from matters of personal consciousness alteration. But as our “fearless leader,” the Texas Air National Guard service avoiding, well heeled, not actually from Texas, son might say, “Bring it on.”
Robert Miles
Santa Monica, CA

Steve Hornbeck’s little piece was humorous. However, that guy he found may not be stoned and able to articulate using more than three words, but it is evident he has been drinking Connecticut water. How else could you explain his affinity for Howie?

Speaking of Kerry. He has sent his minions up here to dig up dirt on Dean. He can save himself the expense and just look at his record as Governor of Vermont. That should be enough to do Howie in, or are people so enamored with incompetence that they don’t recognize it? Or is it they hate Bush so much they are willing to sell their souls to the devil just to have a chance to defeat him?

Whatever the reasons, Dean’s honeymoon will be coming to an end once the real campaign gets under way and people start to see the Democrats for what they really are. A bunch of whining, left-wing, anti-defense, tax and spend fools who promise everything and only deliver misery. Maybe they ought to drop the jackass as their party mascot and adopt a pie in the sky symbol. That’s closer to their philosophy.
Pete Chagnon

Great Steve Hornbeck piece. I laughed out loud. Back in the golden era of George McGovern, I was a McGovernite with a bong on the coffee table and a grow light in the closet. So the future’s bright. Run Howard run!

Re: Happy Feder’s If You Give a Mouse a Cookie:

When one makes grandiose statements such as Jesus accepted the Mishrah which endorses polygamy, one is expected to provide some evidence to that effect. It is wrong to make such slanders without providing some hint as to the evidence.

I challenge you to provide any evidence that Jesus endorsed polygamy. I believe that you can only provide the most tangential associations of Jesus and polygamy. To actually show any endorsement is impossible. Put up or shut up.
Grant Hodges

Happy Feder replies:
I wrote, “Even Jesus embraced the Mishrah, which allowed for polygamy.” Which is different than saying he embraced polygamy. It is true, of course, that the Gospels don’t reveal his specific thoughts on the practice. I won’t speak for Jesus, but I’d expect if a Brigham Young had been around at the time selecting promisingly pretty ten year old girls to marry a few years down the road as a twentieth or thirtieth wife, Jesus would have condemned the abuse and excess.

Re: Lawrence Henry’s An Unclothed Emperor:

Mr. Henry’s latest contribution ends thus: “The next day, Andrew Sullivan mentioned Broder’s column approvingly. Ah, well. That is another unclothed emperor for another time.”

How interesting. Titillating, even. What are Mr. Henry’s thoughts on Mr. Sullivan? Sullivan strikes me as being (aren’t most of us?) a mixed character, clear-sighted in some ways but lacking coherence in others, especially as one probes subjects (involving homosexuals in society) that provoke passion rather than dialectic in him.

Perhaps one day we shall be invited into Mr. Henry’s own thoughts. Or perhaps that will remain a privilege for friends only.
Amanda Bernsen
Kent, England

Re: R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.’s It’s the Humidity:

I have just read your article regarding anti-Americanism in Spain. I was in Spain from March 15 until April 7 with 30 of my students, during the war. Previous to traveling we were very concerned about the attitudes of the Spanish people as the students would be living with Spanish families for a week. Needless to say, we were exposed to many demonstrations by many socio-economic levels of the Spanish society. If one thing stands out it is the statement of an older Spanish woman we met on the street who asked us from what country were we. Being a half a block from a demonstration of over 100,000 people, we quietly said from the USA and that we were nervous about being in Europe. The woman said that it was not the Americans that they disliked, in fact they liked the USA, but it was our “cowboy president” whom they did not trust. Meanwhile, at home we were being told how Spain was supporting us in our efforts, but upon arriving in Madrid and watching TV we discovered as a country they were 93% against the war! This attitude was reflected to all my students, with their families: it is not the USA, it is your “Cowboy President.” These were your ordinary families, not the educational elites to whom you were referring. So, please do not do the Spanish people the injustice of searching for anti-Americanism, do not always assume the worst of people if they do not agree with us. I have traveled to this country for 30 years and find the people extremely gracious. We could learn a lot from them.
Cindy Dean
Battle Lake, MN

Re: The Washington Prowler’s Cooling His Tarheels:

President Bush “41” managed to give us a huge and convoluted new entitlement that only a trial attorney and/or liberal Democrat could love. This was call the Americans with Disabilities Act.

President Bush “43” is absolutely determined to give us a huge and convoluted new entitlement that only a trial attorney and/or liberal Democrat could love. This is the soon to be passed and signed Prescription Drug Subsidy Act (my title for it).

The apple truly does not fall far from the tree. And if these pesty elected conservative Republicans don’t stop annoying Bush “43” and his Merlin (Karl Marx….oops, I mean Rove) they will not be allowed to join the Skull and Bones group with George H. W. and George W. Neither will they be invited to the White House to enjoy a movie and popcorn with George and Teddy Kennedy.
Ken Shreve
New Hampshire

Re: David Hogberg’s No to Gay Adoption:

I don’t personally support Gay and Lesbian adoption, nor do I support children under the age of consent to live full time within a Gay and Lesbian relationship.

I have within my own family seen the effects of a parent changing sexual orientation and keeping the children. There was confusion, anger and embarrassment. The adult can say “face them down”, “we are no different from anyone else,” and all the lines needed to sell themselves, but at the end of the day it is the child that suffers.

Families are mother, father and children. They extend to friends and other family. Families are not two mommies or two daddies.
— unsigned

Re: Mike Harrison’s letter in Reader Mail’s Critical Notice:

In the letter from Mr. Mike Harrison regarding the Supreme Court decisions he wrote, “As for Judge Roy Moore and his Decalogue, since when are public courthouses the personal property of any judge? For them to promote a particular religion simply because it is supported by the majority public is certainly not fair to taxpayers who don’t share those beliefs or values.” My question in response is, since when does putting up a piece of granite with the Ten Commandments on it constitute Congress making a law? I believe that the applicable words in the Constitution are, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” That being true, how does displaying a block of stone with some words carved on it, become “Congress making a law”?
W. B. Heffernan, Jr.

Sign up to receive our latest updates! Register

By submitting this form, you are consenting to receive marketing emails from: The American Spectator, 122 S Royal Street, Alexandria, VA, 22314, http://spectator.org. You can revoke your consent to receive emails at any time by using the SafeUnsubscribe® link, found at the bottom of every email. Emails are serviced by Constant Contact

Be a Free Market Loving Patriot. Subscribe Today!