Thursday, February 05, 2004

And then there were six.

Why does the media report on candidate endorsements of any kind? The media reports on them only because of a misguided sense of importance. Poll after poll shows that no one really cares who endorses who. Newspapers endorse candidates out of a sense of self importance. Elected officials endorse candidates just to get their names in the media, I'm reading Barry Goldwater's autobiography now, and one of the things that he says is that members of Congress are constantly running for reelection. For some senator or Congressman to endorse someone else running for office, they receive free media time. Why do celebrities endorse political candidates? Who knows? None of them live on the same planet Earth as the rest of us. If it's not Manhattan or Malibu, it's not worth visiting. Unfortunately, we the people are responsible for the over idealization of celebrities. They have the idea that their uninformed opinions are more important than that of someone who knows the least bit about the issues. Remember the celebrities denunciation of the liberation of Iraq? None of them seemed to feel that same way about the war in the Balkans. Why do I care the Madonna who doesn't even live in America and speaks in a fake English accent is endorsing Gen Weasel.? I don't. I live in what is called the real world. Why do Gwynith Paltrow and Johnny Depp leave Amerika and talk about how it is such an evil place because of patriotism? One reason, they have everything handed to them on a silver platter, they are so insulated from the real world, that they don't know what real America is about. They have contempt for the values that middle America holds, and they don't have the brain power to process it, so much like medieval society condemning science, they condemn what they cannot understand. The question remains, why do we care? We shouldn't.

Tuesday, February 03, 2004

Dr. David Kay, the new "hero" of the Left? I don't understand how the Leftists come up with the idea that Bush lied. Kay has painstakingly demonstrated and testified that the intelligence was wrong, not the Bush lied. Apparently though, the ultra-intelligent Leftists some reach a Bush lied conclusion from the intelligence was wrong. I know that I am just some bumbling stupid conservative Republican, but doesn't it stand to reason, and I'm not the first to have said this, that if Bush is the super villain that the Left portrays him as, then wouldn't he use his powers as an evil genius to plant evidence that Iraq had WMDs instead of looking for the truth? Unfortunately for the Left, they are so completely anti-American and anti-Bush that they cannot believe that Bush staked his entire presidency on this claim. The Left show themselves to be complete hypocrites when evidence is shown that they supported the SAME POSITION when Clinton was president. Do these Leftists not understand that their records remain with them? The Left is showing itself to be on the wrong side of history. What Dr. Kay's report says, and what he has said himself was that Iraq was a more dangerous place because Iraq had the capability to manufacture these weapons, and the country was open to terrorists. The Left is unable to see beyond their own petty bickering though, and continued to be on the wrong side of history. I know that no one on the Left will take my advice, but here is my best shot. If there is blame for WMDs not being found in Iraq, then it lies with the Left who time and time again voted to defund the CIA. Intelligence failure lies with you. Listen to what Dr. Kay says about that, don't put words into his mouth as you are trying to do. Treat the war on terror as what it is, a war. It is not a police action but a war that means the forces of democracy must take the offensive and remain of the offensive. That requires a CIA that has resources beyond those of satellites. It requires assets on the ground.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?