I really just read through the whole thing.  I've heard so much from both sides-- I'm tired of throwing around the term "unconstitutional" without any real backing.  Once you actually read through it.... unless we're talking REAL stretches here, I can't find a damn thing.

Maybe he's referring to the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

I've come across a few Libs misquoting the Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness as the Constitution.

But quite honestly, I enjoy your playing Devil's Advocate-- who really knows what "Obamacare" is anymore??  Do "the people" really WANT what is drafted now?  It's a giant fucking mess.  

I'm EMBARRASSED we couldn't do this correctly-- I'm ANGRY at the right for opting out of the drafting of these bills, and then having the audacity to call them "partisan bills."  

I'm angry at the left for allowing it to be watered down to what it is now.  There is no real driving force now.. the kids (like me) for it--who are generally on the fence-- are stepping back and saying WHOA... THIS isn't what we wanted...

I'm curious as to the response.  I hope you get one.  I'm curious the viewpoint of the few and far between still holding that this is what the country needs.  My only driving force now, is that if we don't succeed in passing SOMETHING-- we won't see the prospect of trying this again for another 15-20 years...

I am under familial and time constraints right now.  When I can have some "quality time" with the internet, I'll post the follow-ups.

(Spoiler:  NOTHING as specific as has been discussed here resulted...)

Mr. Davison:

Bill Bowman shared your non-private letter to him with me.  What is ironic and almost comical about this situation is that Bill Bowman and his editor hold very conservative political views although those views seldom leak out in the paper's editorials.  I, on the other hand, am a liberal regarding a number of current issues and Mr. Bowman and I have sometimes engaged in enthusiastic discussions on these matters.

So take a deep breath and relax.  U&CW is not edited by wild-eyed, commie pinko, Ted Kennedy Liberals.

Dave Wilson

I really like that the publisher forwarded my note to the "corporate liberal guy" and that he felt compelled to point out that my letter was "non-private."

I guess Iwas either too clever or not clever enough (probably the latter) that these guys were totally hung up on my snarky remark about "the liberal media."

My reply to David Wilson:

Mr. Wilson:

Thanks for writing.  

Actually, I was attempting to employ a couple literary devices known as "humor" and "irony" in the final sentence of my "non-private letter" to Mr. Bowman.  

It is very apparent to me that Mr. Bowman has not taken a "wild-eyed, commie pinko, Ted Kennedy Liberal" stance in what he had written.  

Since you have "engaged in enthusiastic discussions on these matters" with Mr. Bowman, do you know what he means when writes about the arrogant trampling of the Constitution that is contratry to the wishes of the people?

That is, how exactly, is the Constitution being trampled?  What are "the wishes of the people" and, who are these people?  How does arrogance enter the picture? And, again, what, exactly is this "Obamacare" I keep hearing about?

I appreciate hearing from you, and look forward to hearing from Heather Griffiths, Dean Robbins, Pitt Dickey and the rest of the gang.  (Oops, I did it again didn't I?)

Warmest Regards,

Craig P. (You can call me "Craig") Davison

Dave's response was succinct:

Craig:

My best explanation or answers to your questions could be summed up with one word, hyperbole.

Dave W.

Next, a second response from the publisher.  

(Spoiler Alert:  Everybody involved loses interest!)

First a strangely superfluous preamble:

Thanks for your note, Craig.

We appreciate you reading our publication. Actually, go to www.upandcomingweekly.com and subscribe to our VIP Early Bird Edition. It comes out online Tuesday afternoon. I will try to respond to your questions in the near future. Being a small company it is constantly "all hands on deck".

Now, down to business:

Actually, in this weeks editorial I was referring to the Obama administration ignoring the wishes of Americans in general. American's have made it clear that they are not happy with the way the health care plan is coming down or the way we are dealing with the know[n] terrorist. Yet Obama continues to pursue the agenda and in the most contentious way. Cutting deals, selling out and "pay to play" tactics that borderline criminal. I know it is "politics as usual" but this is blatant and when coupled with closed door negotiations it doesn't take 20/20 vision to see the American people are being sold out. When terrorist get the same, or more, rights than the people they vow to destroy someone has got to draw a line.  Middle America is fed up and it's beginning to show.

These were my points.

Bill

Mostly more sound-bite talking points, but with an added element of a "know[n] terrorist" being given "the same, or more, rights" than actual Americans.

The Governor from Virginia made the same sort of statement during the GOP's SOTU response.  Where the heck is this stuff coming from?  Is there some specific issue or incident here or is it automatically wrong if a "know[n] terrorist" isn't immdiately waterboarded 183 times?

But I digress.

No definition of what "Obamacare" is.

As far as I can tell his idea of "arrogantly" ignoring "the wishes" of "the people" is that Obama is sticking to his promise to oversee that HCR is enacted.  He was voted into office by enough of "the people" that to do otherwise would be breaking an important promise and simply governing by the latest poularity polls, don't you think?

Also, no further information on how he thinks the Constitution is being "trampled."

Ah, well.  It's just a local "arts 'n entertainment" throw around.  I was rapidly losing interest in exchanging any further emails with this fellow, who was obviously busy, busy, busy.  

Here was my final communication:

Bill:

Thanks for taking time to write.  I understand about small companies.  I used to work around the corner (so to speak) at Burkhead-DeVane Printing and idle hand were not an option!

I appreciate what you have written.  Admittedly it doesn't answer every last thing, but rather than haggle or argue ("Well, this Rasmussen poll clearly shows...") any further, I'll simply thank you for your responses and let it go at that.

Keep those presses rolling!

Yeah, the whole thing just sort of petered out.

Kinda like this diary entry.  Thanks to all who read and/or responded.

Now, back to Fat Albert and the Gang!