Larsen Financial is a full-service investment center that has all the products and services of the major brokerages, but without the high costs.

Learn more.

Thank Heavens Howard Dean is Not our President

  • Thank Heavens Howard Dean is Not our President

  • 12 August 2007 by 0 Comments

Thank Heavens Howard Dean is Not our President
By Richard Larsen
Published – Idaho State Journal, 08/12/07

I listened with interest to DNC Chairman Howard Dean’s comments in Pocatello on Wednesday, and realized with even greater perspicacity the polarization of our political environment based on party affiliation.

Governor Dean said that people need to know the true Democrat party and not rely on other sources that have “not told the truth about them for 30 years.” In reality, it is not necessary to peruse additional sources to define them. The primary sources, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and the gaggle of presidential candidates tell us everyday what they believe. They want more government; increasing confiscation of our income; socialized medicine; more wealth redistribution; “peace” through appeasement, acquiescence, and flight; fight terror with subpoena’s instead of bullets; more control of our personal lives by either limiting or outlawing cigarettes, trans-fats, emotions in crime (i.e. hate), etc., etc. No, I think they define their vision for the future of America very well on their own . And of course, their solution for everything that ails America is more taxes. I think they define themselves very well on their own.

Deans’ comments about Iraq were imbued with the type of rhetorical flatulence we’ve come to expect from the left, all based on the premise that we have to “get out now.” Of course he didn’t bother to explain how our national security is served by getting out now; or how we’re safer or how the world is better.

Dean implemented some circuitous reasoning by claiming that Democrats support the troops, and the best way to support them is to bring them home. For some reason, I always thought the primary function of the military was to defeat enemies seeking our destruction. I’m sure there are some terrorists here on our own soil, but I’m even more sure that there are a whole lot more over there than there are here. Although with a premature withdrawal from Iraq, the likelihood of having many more of them here is certainly augmented.

It appears to me that right now we have the best of both worlds: the Republican way of fighting them where we find them, and the Democrat way of serving subpoenas and using law enforcement to track them down domestically. That sounds like a pretty good combination. I don’t think the law enforcement approach advocated by the Democrats would work very well in the terrorist hotbeds of Iraq and Afghanistan. We’d need too many document servers, for they’d probably be beheaded after serving the subpoenas.

By the way, in light of that comment by the Governor, did you know that we lost more servicemen during “peacetime” from 1993 through 1996 in the Clinton Administration than we have lost in the war on terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan in four years? According to the Department of Defense, we lost 4,417 servicemen and women in that four-year period, while we have lost about 4,000 in Iraq and Afghanistan. It doesn’t seem that they are more safe conducting training missions than they are in actual battle against the enemy. There is undoubtedly more to be unearthed in the figures, but from a purely quantitative approach, they appear to be safer while doing what they volunteered to do: defeat our enemies and protect the country. And to me, they’re all equally heroic whether they died in training exercises or on the battlefield against our enemies.

Interestingly, Dean also mentioned the genocide in Darfur and how we should do something about it. From a purely moral perspective, it would be good if we could, but I don’t think I heard him explicate what our national security interest there is? And even from a purely moral perspective, shouldn’t we be more concerned with preventing the genocide that would occur in Iraq with a premature withdrawal where we have genuine national security interests?

Regarding the funding of the Iraq conflict, the Governor said we need to take the money going into that effort and put it into our schools, our healthcare, and our roads. Hmm. I guess I missed the part of his recommendation that explains how that’s going to prevent Islamic extremist terrorists from attacking us. They’d have to be very good schools and roads if they’re going to help protect us from the lunatics who would rather behead us than talk to us!

This is not my typical writing style, but I just thought it would be interesting to write a column just like all the liberals who write for the Journal: no documentation, little or no facts, just straight from the hip and replete with simplistic accusations, pejorative innuendo, and aspersions about the incompetence of the opposition party. I can see why they write this way. It’s a lot less work so you can be intellectually lackadaisical in the process, and you don’t have to substantiate anything.

As for Governor Dean, I’m sure glad he’s just chairman of the DNC and not our President. He has even less of a grasp of the primary threat facing America than the aforementioned gaggle of Democrat presidential candidates who haven’t even mentioned the war against terrorism once in their four or five dozen debates they’ve held so far.

Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, and is a graduate of Idaho State University with a BA in Political Science and History and former member of the Idaho State Journal Editorial Board. He can be reached at

About the

More than anything, I want my readers to think. We're told what to think by the education establishment, which is then parroted by politicians from the left, and then reinforced by the mainstream media. Steeped in classical liberalism, my ideological roots are based in the Constitution and our founding documents. Armed with facts, data, and correct principles, today's conservatives can see through the liberal haze and bring clarity to any political discussion.

Related Posts