Fickle is one thing but...

The Dubai port issue has been framed entirely and wildly exaggerated by some who oppose it,others who don't understand it (and don't care to), and by Democrats who see it as an opportunity to look strong on security - even though the issue itself has very little to do with security.

Fickle is one thing but... if "the public" abandons George Bush and/or (worse) thinks that the Democrats are stronger on national security than Republicans, based on this trumped-up issue, (as Rasmussen, at least, seems to think), then there is no hope that any elected official or party will ever again be able to run this country safely or efficiently.

I propose the implementation of a new system for "electing" our leaders: Daily elections.

A daily poll or vote could be taken via internet, phone, and polls, in which registered voters, felons, illegal immigrants, and foreigners express (via internet or phone) their daily preference for all elected offices. A daily election, if you will. ("Who should be president tomorrow.")

Had this process been in place, we would have had 32 presidents in the past year. Among them: Cindy Sheehan, John McCain, Jimmy Carter, Bode Miller, John Murtha, Harry Reid, Harry Belefonte, Hugo Chavez, Janice Jackson, Nancy Pelosi, Jack Abramoff and, of course, George Clooney.

And we'd be exactly where we are today: a country whose sole obsession is political power; whose only motivation to action is opposition to the "other" party; a country that can't get anything done; a country that is on its way off the world stage.

Bandwagon

William F. Buckly ("Iraq is Lost") has now jumped on the Failure Bandwagon.

Why does everyone hate GWB so?

In America (and maybe the world) today, Hate trumps Love (as it always has), but it also trumps logic, sanity, civility, reality and patriotism.

Soon... very soon... these voices of failure will prove right. That does not mean that they are right now; it means that a negative, repeated often enough, becomes fulfilled.

It is no longer a case of how much the world hates us; it is how much we seem to hate ourselves.

Seeing this makes me sad.

Jimmy Carter - ex-President, Traitor

Are bowlers really "athletes"?

Are rappers really "musicians"?

Are pennies really "money"?

Are polls really "news"?

Is Teddy Kennedy really a "public servant"?

Are people who ask Jimmy Carter's opinion really "reporters"?

Don't strain yourself; the answer to all these questions is a resounding NO.

There is no less newsworthy personality on this earth than Jimmy Carter; unless being both an ex-president and a traitor is newsworthy.

I would rather read the opinion of Mary at the Convenient Store up the street.

Bryant Gumble - black when it's useful

Who remembers Bryant Gumble from the Today show days? (small spattering of applause)
Now, who can remember one thing Bryant Gumble has done since he left the Today show for the big time. (Dead Silence)

Anyway, he quit the today show because he was just too big for the format. The plan was that he would become the next Barbara Walters - big names would clamor for an hour with Bryant the Great. Didn't happen - not even once. No one has heard his name or his voice for 10 years... so to correct that he (as he always has) has to bring up his favorite subject: Race.

Gumble is upset that there aren't more black luge pilots, ski jumpers, ice skaters. It doesn't bother him that the Olympics of the Summer is about 92% black; nor does it bother him that the NBA is 99.7% black. He would say that's where the talent is. Fair enough. But Race Street is one-way and Bryant is upset about the ski team's whiteness.

If Bryant Bumble is anything at all these days, he is a joke. He got his only good job in the days when putting a black man in the morning anchor chair was good for business. He made millions hawking other people's books and eating ravioli at 7AM. He became famous primarily for being an arrogant asshole. He believed his own hype - went out on his own - and promptly disappeared. Thank God for small favors.

Don't confuse Bryant with his younger (and much more successful brother) Brad - a top end sports anchor who doesn't seem to use skin color to form his opinions. Bryant is to Brad as Jimmy Carter is to Billy (if he were alive) - an embarrassment - and no, I don't have that backwards. Jimmy Carter is a whole nother (but similar) story.

Celebrity

I played baseball in high school - that doesn't make me an athlete today.
I was in the marching band - that doesn't make me a musician today.
Richard Dreyfuss made a movie or two in... the 80's?. Celebrity is a term used pretty loosely these days.
Alec Baldwin's claim to fame is... that he is Alec Baldwin?

I happen to like most Johnny Depp movies. Maybe I'm unusual... but I don't walk out of those movies thinking to myself "Good Movie... I wonder how Johnny thinks I should vote?"

At least Johnny had the honesty to leave the country that he hates - he just makes all of his money here. Baldwin (and others) use the threat of their leaving this country to try to force us to their way of thinking. (Oh God! We can't let Alec Baldwin get away - we must vote for Kerry.)

Expertise (or luck) in one area of life does not indicate expertise in another... but that appears to be the assumption by many "celebrities" (like Clooney, Penn, Streisand, et al). who seem to believe that they are obligated to use their fame to forward their politics. And sadly, we listen.

Even more sadly, we listen to those "celebrities" whose stature - even in their area of success - is historical at best. These pathetic cases (Dreyfuss, Robbins, Baldwin, et al) seem to think that stating their politics will some how bring back their celebrity status.

In a time when the media is 99% controlled by flaming liberals, there is no surer way to get your name in the media than "announcing" your opposition to George W. Bush. And, as we do with so many of the forces that are destroying the American way of life, we allow it.

"Fact"check.org

I don't go there often... neither should you.

Factcheck.org did what they would like us to believe is an "analysis" of President's State of the Union address. Their analysis "found nothing that was factually incorrect" in the address, but was very careful to point out several omissions, most of which referred to statistics and events from the President's first term, and most of which would have a negative effect on the address. Their general observation seems to be that the president, in the SOTU, emphasized the positive aspects of the present and future - imagine that!

The Factcheck people also give us their view of the Democratic response - honestly headlining it as the Democratic State of the Union Attack. [Redundant: any statement by a Democrat is an attack against the President. Attacking is, afterall, what the Democrats understand to be the meaning of "opposition party".] The analysis of the response points out several clear misrepresentations (the Democrats gave "a misleading picture of Bush's record on jobs", the Democrat response took "liberties with a New York Times story that said the lives of 300 troops might have been saved with "improved" body armor. The ad calls it "proper" body armor, a term not used by the Times story.", an accusation of "underfunding" of the No Child Left Behind program is "misleading because federal aid for elementary schools and high schools actually has increased 33 percent under Bush".

So... in balance... the President omitted negative 5-year old facts from his State of the Union Address, and the Democrats lied and mislead in their response in an effort to make Bush look bad. Factcheck offers no opinion of those two "facts" from their analysis, presenting both actions as virtually equivalent; and, in doing so, exhibits its own bias.

Cartoons & Hillary the Clueless

The response of the "Muslim World" to the Danish cartoons is a clear example of the insanity of these fanatics and those who are so easily and blindly led to always violent over-reaction. Could one expect more from a people, mired in the 10th Century (or is it the 4th?), who turn their children into bombs and cut off the heads of innocents? I think not.

While it is true that this is a war against "radical" Islamists, it is apparently just as true that a very large portion of the Muslim population can become a "radical" Islamist at the drop of a hat - or an obscure cartoon - or an erroneous story in Newsweek.

As much as it is denied, this is a war of civilizations. It is the past versus the future. In our overly-sensitive political-social environment, we have begun to adjust our behavior out of fear of the reaction of this irrational and violence prone group of people.

Meanwhile, Hillary (among others) taunts the Administration for "playing the fear card". Clueless and without shame... fools like her know nothing but politics.