I Feel Special! I Got Hate-Mail!

Reader PJ, who also resides in Arizona, sent me an email today. I've responded, but I had to put it up here. My responses are interspersed in his screed, below:

Mr. Baker,

I am a Democrat and proud owner of several fire arms. I don't believe that our government is going to protect us so let's just say that I am prepared for the worst. It seems to me that you are not being fair to Democrats. You are labeling them Liberals when we are not.

Not all of you, certainly, but the moonbat wing has certainly grasped the reins of power in the party. And they're NOT liberals, they're Leftists. (Big "L").

I'm sure Junior Bush and his administration has had a hand in brain-washing the words "Liberal Democrat" into your mind.

You are? Let me assure you, four years of Jimmy Carter followed by eight years of William Jefferson Clinton cemented the words "Liberal Democrat" in my mind long before George Walker Bush was tapped by the Republican cognoscenti to be the 2000 nominee for President. And a reminder: Al Gore was "Junior," as in Albert Arnold Gore II. George Walker Bush is the first son of George Herbert Walker Bush. He is not G.H.W. Bush II. Do try to strive for accuracy.

Do you always believe everything Mr. Bush tells you?

I do not, but I have found him to be much more plainspoken (in all meanings of the word) than previous spinmeisters who have occupied that office. Do you believe every utterance of John Forbes Kerry? He's proven to be deliberately mendacious, you know.

Did you duct tape your home when he told us to?

Actually, I believe it was Tom Ridge who made that announcement, and no, I did not. Again, strive for accuracy.

Did nipple-gate distract you and take your mind off of what was really happening in Iraq?

Do you think Bush invented "nipplepgate" or that the Bush Administration simply grasped it as something to wave in America's face? Or do you understand that there is a large percentage of the population that found that incident to be offensive, and the government felt quite a bit of pressure (you remember government - supposed representative of the People?) to respond?

And you wonder why I call so many Democrats "Liberals" (Actually, I prefer the term "Leftist" - I'M what used to be called a 'classical liberal' - interested in freedom for all and minimal intrusion by government into our lives.)

Do you really believe that stem cell research to help cure diabetes and other illnesses is evil?

Haven't read much of my blog, have you?

Do you really believe that women who have endometriosis and other “female diseases” should just pray to God instead of getting treatment (like our great commander and chief believes)?

Got a cite?

You REALLY haven't read much of my blog. That's obvious.

I have one request…When you write, please remember that there are two parties: Libertarians and Democrats. Dem's are not going to follow the religious right wing like your current President does.

Um, no. There's that accuracy thing again. There are several parties. The two primary ones, and a scattering of ones that can't get anybody elected to office.

The Dems aren't going to follow the religious right? That's fine with me. I'm not all that happy with the "religious right wing" myself, being an atheist. I am, however, less enthusiastic about the Socialist mandate of the Democratic party than I am concerned about the Religious Right.

He is a dangerous man with a dangerous religious right agenda.

You just echoed my favorite Bush criticism. It's a quote I found in a Sacramento Bee piece from May of 2003:

"What is a little disconcerting for the French is an American president who seems to be principled," said Jean Duchesne, an English literature professor at Condorcet College in Paris. "The idea that politics should be based on principles is unimaginable because principles lead to ideology, and ideology is dangerous."

You're apparently in fine company.

Bush is a man with principles based in his interpretation of the Christian religion. Which is, I am convinced, better in a President than having no moral center. We must, I think, agree to disagree here. It is the job of Congress to restrain him if he attempts to push a "Religious Right Agenda." Bush runs the Executive Branch. Legislation is the duty of the Legislative Branch.

He needs to be removed from office.

Not if the alternatives are John Kerry, Ralph Nader, and Michael Badnarik. We happen to be in the middle of a war that wasn't started by us, and Bush is the only one of that group I trust to prosecute it. There is much I dislike about Bush, but his actions in this war do not rank among them.

He dodged Vietnam by going to the National Guard. I don’t know how old you are, but back then, that was about as courageous as going to Canada.

Or dodging service as Clinton did? And consistency once again raises its ugly head. I don't blame him for that, and thousands of others didn't either. As I recall, bringing up Clinton's avoidance of the draft during the 1992 election was pooh-pooh'ed because avoiding the draft was considered an HONORABLE thing to do, since everybody on the Left KNEW the war in Vietnam was illegitimate and illegal and horrible. I'd think you'd be PROUD that Bush avoided dropping napalm and killing babies.

You see, one of the problems I have with the Left is their absolute inability to be consistent on anything. It's that lack of a moral center thing, I think.

At least John Kerry signed up to go to Vietnam, and that is more courageous than anything Junior Bush has ever done in his life (for maybe the exception of giving up cocaine and alcohol).

Yes, he signed up, got out of combat just as quickly as he could manage, came back here and (while still an officer in the Naval Reserves) testified that horrible things were going on in Vietnam on a regular basis with the full knowledge of the upper echelons of the military, giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Mr. Kerry stated in the 1971 "Winter Soldier" testimony that Vietnam represented no threat to the U.S., then he stands before the American people and states that as a young man he fought in Vietnam and "defended America." Well, which is it? He testified in the Senate that he was in Cambodia on Christmas of 1968 - a memory SEARED into him - that never happened. Don't tell me how courageous Kerry is. Flying a single-engined jet interceptor isn't exactly a Sunday drive even on "routine" missions. So? Kerry got shot at. Tens of thousands of Americans got shot at in Vietnam. That doesn't qualify them to be President. And if Clinton avoiding the draft wasn't reason to reject him outright for the office, then Bush serving in the National Guard shouldn't be either.

Again - try logical consistency. It might give you some insight into conservatism.

The great John McCain has stood up for John Kerry and said he is a friend and he has confidence he can handle terrorism and the security of our country.

Ah yes, John McCain. The Republican the Democrats wanted as Vice President. As FIRST CHOICE. Lacking a little depth in candidates?

The "great John McCain" is responsible for the first really egregious Federal violation of the First Amendment (along with Feingold) in the Campaign Finance Reform Act. I'm pissed at Bush for signing it, and appalled that the Supreme Court didn't throw it out on it's ear. Apparently neither the Congress, nor President Bush, nor SCOTUS can interpret "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..."

I believe Mr. McCain because he is not caught up in the religious right.

No, you believe McCain because his position agrees with yours. It's an emotional response.

I want to see him out of office. He's done enough damage.

I will do everything in my power to remove Junior Bush and his radical right wing agenda out of office.

As long as you act within the law, more power to you. I will do what I can to see him re-elected.

Just yesterday a stem cell research facility was bombed (more wacky right wing nut-balls).

Tell me, are they in any way associated with the Leftist nutballs that trash medical research centers that use animals for testing? (Even stem-cell research?) Or the ones who burn down SUV dealerships and high-end houses that are under construction? It seems that nut-balls are to be found on both sides, eh?

Tell me, why is it okay to use stem cells for in-vitro practices, but not to help people with child-hood diabetes?

You're shooting at the wrong target here PJ. I'm all for stem-cell research. I think Bush is wrong on this one. But I hold that the problem of radical Islamic nutballs who want to see us ALL dead is the bigger problem here. I'll deal with the stem-cell problem through my congresscritters. They're the ones who write the laws.

The stem cells are discarded after the in-vitro process….what’s the difference between in-vitro and stem cell research other than it’s their agenda to produce more children in this world…I would think for an engineer you would be more intelligent than what I am reading on your site.

I'd think you'd do more reading before leaping to conclusions.

Your views are simply more “brain-washed”, hateful etchings of what Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity spew each day.

As opposed to the reasonable, dulcet voices of Michael Moore, Janeane Garofolo, Al Franken, et al?

These men are sad, pathetic, dangerous men.

Because they say things you don't want people to hear? And I thought the Left was all for Freedom of Speech! Except, of course, when that speech shows the Left up as hypocritical in the extreme. Here's another example of the party that believes in Democracy not trusting the American public's own bullshit detectors. No, according to the Left, Americans are too stupid to be trusted to vote correctly because Limbaugh and Hannity are able to brainwash them, but the Left is unable to do the same. So, again, which is it? Are we to be trusted to make our own decisions, or is the enlightened intelligentsia of the Left to make our decisions for us because we're just too stupid to do so? A stupidity exemplified by the fact that half the nation was willing to vote for Bush over his obvious intellectual superior, Al Gore?

Sorry, PJ. The "sad, pathetic, dangerous men" are the ones who don't trust the People. Check a mirror.

You sound like a decent guy, but the more I read, the more you frighten me.

Good. I'm glad.

I would not want to go shooting with you in fear that you might shoot me in the back.

That's the difference between us, PJ. I'm apparently something you have no experience with. I am a man of honor and principle. It's the Left that has a long history of shooting people such as me in the back of the head as a means of "re-education." I assure you, if I ever found it necessary to shoot you, you'd be facing me, and you'd be armed.

UPDATE 8/30: I received a reply from PJ: "Why am I not surprised?" Hmm... Lack of imagination?