Replies

Timing is everything, isn't it. Cherie Blair thinks President Bush stole the election from Al Gore. Lo and behold, we have another election this year and this juicy book is published.

I can't wait to see the media's worship of Bill Clinton's book later this year. They will, of course, pick and choose, point out and discuss all things negative about President Bush. (The irony, of course, is that Bill's book will not enhance his "legacy" as he wishes, but will instead give all the attention to the Left's archenemy, George W. Bush.)

I'm beginning to think of the media as not unlike the suicide/homicide bombers in the Middle East, Iraq. and elsewhere. They set a Bushbomb, watch from a distance as it explodes, emphasize that the Bush presidency is a quagmire all its own and that we need to "bring the troops home" (to the good ole' Clinton way of governing) and get the U.N. involved (in removing Bush as an obstacle to America's being "liked" by the world).

People are going to be making more than one choice this November. They will be voting for or against media lies, distortion and manipulation in addition to electing those who will take our nation either back to sovereignty or to a position as "Most Popular" in the World Yearbook.

As for Cherie Blair, she has a right to speak her mind. It's up to voters to decide whether or not to allow her to influence their votes in this year's General Election (Side note: We don't read about the other side--what President Bush said---in the liitle argument about capital punishment. I imagine he responded that America leaves it up to the individual states to decide that issue.)

Photo below is from a television shot during Prime Minister Blair's speech before Congress on July 17, 2003. Another bit of irony: the words superimposed on FNC's banner, highlighting a point from Blair's speech.

(Side note: We don't read about the other side--what President Bush said---in the liitle argument about capital punishment. I imagine he responded that America leaves it up to the individual states to decide that issue.)

I don't get a chance to talk to a lot of Europeans, and I've only discussed this topic with three (two Brits and one German). I don't know how representative this sample is, but all three had little or no prior understanding of Federalism, and found the principal rather shocking when it was explained. It just didn't seem to make any sense to them that crucial matters of governance would not be decided at the national level. (Thank God I live in America!)

I liked your post. You are entirely correct. And insightful. Enjoy your day on your horse as the opposition here seems to think we all ride around on horsies. He doesn't know some of us own BMWS and some trucks but hey, if he wants to see us as cowboys, let him. That has intrigued me, the fact that the opposition sees most Freepers as cowboys. Interesting.