20/20 Blindsight

It would appear the Democrats are content in remaining an "also ran" in American politics. At least that would be the case if Howard Dean became the DNC chair.

Hot on the heels of the "screaming" success of his presidential campaign, Dean remarked that Bush won by dividing the country over "guns, God and Gays." Making him one of only a handful of people in America who don't realize the obvious -- that Bush was elected primarily by his resolve to support the Iraqis bid for freedom and democracy, and more importantly, he's committment to protecting American citizens from the continued global threat of terrorism. And the Democrats helped reinforce that position by drawing media attention whenever a Republican would mention the events of 9/11.

Taking it a step further, I believe that Bush won in spite of his position on Guns, God and Gays. At least that's the case for many independents and moderates such as myself, which I believe is the constituency that the Democratic Party candidates have to woo if they want to have any chance of winning in the midterm elections and in 2008. That said, Howard Dean is hardly the person to bring them there.

Showing further how out of touch he is, Dean has also claimed in the past that in addition to using "Guns, God and Gays" to purposely divide the country, Republicans also "stir up racial prejudices to win presidential elections." Howard is right on the last part, since highlighting some of the racial attacks against Bush cabinet members Colin Powell and Condolezza Rice has definitely helped him get reelected.
Click here to read the complete post.

Traveling

I've been traveling the past week and will resume my postings this weekend. With the Presidential Inauguration and Michael Moore's bodyguard being arrested for carrying an unlicensed handgun yesterday, I'm eager to get going again :-)
Click here to read the complete post.

No Post Today, but ...

After seeing this photo*[see warning below] on the net today, I'm really not motivated to post my usual rebuttals against Michael Moore, Ted Kennedy, George Soros, Liberals, etc. It just feels too petty in the scheme of things.

Instead, I'd like to suggest you go here and give whatever you can. Then go home and hug your wife, your kids or even Michael Moore.

*WARNING: Please be advised BEFORE you click on the link - it is an extremely disturbing image. And if you have any doubt to its authenticity, go here.
Click here to read the complete post.

Two Wrongs Only Make One Right

I just read an article on the RightNation website, which discussed MSNBCs Keith Olbermann villainizing Fox News for running the Swift Boat ads, and using that not only as a case to illustrate Fox's bias, but as a defense against such claims against the liberal media. (Well, they do say the best defense is a strong offense.) In fact, his argument against Fox and defense of the liberal media only reinforces the case of bias BY the liberal media, which Olbermann not only helps prove, but actually becomes a part of.

I also don't understand how can anyone make a claim that a network like Fox should be censoring political ads? It's not as if they commissioned those ads, or even ran them exclusively, as it was also aired across the nation on other media. Furthermore, using this to illustrate bias is even more ridiculous in light of Fox News' airing the recent MoveOn.org TV commercial, which is pretty reprehensible in my opinion. If you haven't seen it yet, it shows the images of Abu Ghriab with a voice-over which describes Alberto Gonzales as "the man whose memos justified the use of torture in Iraq" - a complete distortion of the facts.

By that same logic, I imagine that there should also be outrage against the New York Times for running this ad showing an Abu Ghraib "torture" image along side a photo of Alberto Gonzales with the text "You may not know Alberto Gonzales. But we're sure you'll recognize the results of his work." But I won't be holding my breath waiting for Olbermann to point that one out any time soon.
Click here to read the complete post.

Below the Surface

On this blog, I've made a few observations about the liberal media which after reading "The Terrorists' Leftist PR Machine" at FrontPageMag.com today, I realized was only the tip of the iceberg. I strongly recommend you read this article and see what lies below the surface. Here's an except ...

"In an op-ed for the Fort-Worth Star-Telegram, radical leftist Robert Jensen and journalism professor at the University of Texas at Austin, calls on Americans to pursue “the most courageous act of citizenship in the United States today: pledging to dismantle the American empire.”  Jensen insists, “The United States has lost the war in Iraq, and that's a good thing.” With Professor Jensen, leftist stalwart pundits and publications—including The Nation, Barbara Ehrenreich, and Howard Zinn—have abandoned pacifism in favor of rooting for America's terrorist (“insurgent”) enemies in Iraq."

As a footnote, so far I've only really discussed the "established" media, but I think it's time to look below the surface of the "altnerative" and "indy" media and explore how they're influencing the perceptions of America both here and abroad. Look forward to your comments.
Click here to read the complete post.

Money for Hate

Ralph Peters had an excellent opinion piece in yesterday's New York Post, titled "Money for Hate. Not Muslim Tsunami Victims."

Here are two interesting observations ...

How the Saudis, with all of their self-righteousness and preaching about Islamic duties, can neglect the basic obligation of charity demanded by the Koran is so far beyond any recognizable sense of morality that words can't capture the shabbiness.

Meanwhile, U.S. Navy and Marine helicopters work around the clock to feed the starving — without asking for anybody's religious credentials. As predicted by The Post, Aceh's fundamentalist mullahs are already preaching that Allah punished the people for being insufficiently rigorous in their behavior, for being too tolerant. The same mullahs explain away Western aid as a plot.

In regard to the last paragraph, the fact that we're even providing aid for people like the man in the UBL t-shirt in this photograph below (not related to the article) speaks volumes about us.


Click here to read the complete post.

The Vote is In - Michael Moore has No Shame

As I'm sure you've all read by now, "Fahrenheit 9/11" picked up top honors at last night's People's Choice Awards, amidst allegations that Michael Moore stuffed the digital ballot box. (Perhaps we can enlist Barbara Boxer to hold up the actual award pending a Congressional investigation). The only difference between the charges against Moore and those stemming from the recent Presidental election is that there's actually evidence of the former.

Not only did Moore send tens or hundreds of thousands of emails to subscribers to his newsletter and visitors to his website, but left-wing groups and liberals such as Barbara Streisand even linked to his site, joining him in encouraging them to vote for his film and telling fans that a vote for "Fahrenheit 9/11" was a vote against President Bush! Kind of like going to war against Mel Gibson under false pretenses, if you will.

Finally, he dedicated the award to either the troops serving in Iraq or to their parents, I'm still not sure but you can decide.

"I'm honored and gratified and I know that there are many people tonight — mothers and fathers across this country — with sons and daughters in Iraq. Our prayers are with them and I dedicate this award to them tonight."

I would imagine he's supporting the parents of the troops, as opposed to those actually fighting in Iraq. I base this on two facts: First, that he seems to enjoy accusing people of not wanting to send their own children into war, as he did to several elected officials in the film, as well as to Bill O'Reilly during the RNC. Second, his proclamation that the insurgents in Iraq "will win," calling them "freedom fighters" and comparing them to Minutemen from the American revolution.

P.S. - Take a look at his photo accepting the award. I guess he's no longer going for that "man of the people" look, but more of a Regis Philbin or game show host thing. Though he looks more like Drew Carey after a visit from the cast of "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy."
Click here to read the complete post.

A Nod and a Wink from the Liberal Media

In what seems to have become a passive-aggressive editorial style since Bush won relection, the liberal media is continuing their administration-bashing agenda, but in many cases, hidden in the subtext.

For example, in Peter Beinart's opinion piece in the New York Post this weekend, "The Right's Small World," he states fairly matter-of-factly toward the end of his column that ""To win over global heards and minds, the United States must show Muslims, and others, that we are benevolent - that we want a better world for them; that we are not just in it for empire and oil." [Emphasis added] Excuse me Peter, "not JUST in it for empire and oil?" As if that's a given. Despite what the liberal media would have the world belive, I don't think we have done anything to indicate that we are in it for either empire OR oil and that's a perception that we need to overcome in the Muslim world. Whereas, comments like yours just reinforce this misconception and, like Michael Moore, adds fuels to the fires of hatred of America.

So, I put down the Post and picked up the January issue of Vanity Fair magazine. After the summer of Bush-bashing from within the pages of this formerly great magazine, not to mention Editor Graydon Carter's doing so every other chance he had, I thought I'd give them another chance. (Hey, they did have "Ahnold" and Maria on the cover. Well, I randomly open the magazine to the Letters section and read this "had (John McCain) won the nomination, he would probably have beaten the Democratic nominee decisively, whereas Bush in actuality lost the election and had to reply on questionable means to walk off with the prize." That wasn't "I believe" he lost and relied on questionable mean, but "in actuality" lost and relied on questionable means. (Sounds alot like the Michael Moore talking point below.) My point is, how can any responsible media choose to include mistruths and allegations in such a matter-of-fact and consistent manner? Here's some news for Graydon Carter, Michael Moore, etc. -- Bush did "in actuality" WIN the election. Furthermore, it's extremely devisive and harmful to this country in the current national and international political climate to make such matter-of-fact allegations about how the President won the election without any facts to back them up. Even Barack Osama, the poster child for the future of the Democratic Party stated "The election is over and President Bush won fair and square."

Please realize that I'm not saying the media's criticism of the government is wrong or unpatriotic, but I find it irresponsible to do so in manners such as these without presenting any facts to support their allegations.
Click here to read the complete post.

Legal Guidelines for Intelligence Gathering

I've seen this article from the Washington Post posted on liberal boards and blogs as in indictment of Alberto Gonzalez. As far as I'm concerned it's quite the opposite. Here's an excerpt:

"They asked for a legal review -- the first ever by the government -- of how much pain and suffering a U.S. intelligence officer could inflict on a prisoner without violating a 1994 law that imposes severe penalties, including life imprisonment and execution, on convicted torturers. The Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel took up the task, and at least twice during the drafting, top administration officials were briefed on the results." [Emphasis added by me].

I added the emphasis in the paragraph above to point out that the objective was to stay within the law. But at the same time we didn't want to lose any opportunities to try to gather as much intelligence as possible, with the goal of stopping potential terrorists attacks that can tak the lives of American citizens. For those of you not living near a target like the Port of Los Angeles, Washington D.C., New York's Financial District or a major transportation hub or landmark building, let me explain -- this is a GOOD thing.
Click here to read the complete post.

How the UN Can Help Rebuild in South Asia

If former California Assemblyman Howard Kaloogian could help get Gray Davis out of office, perhaps he can help get the UN out of the United States. As Chairman of Move America Forward, Kaloogian is spearheading a drive for signatures on a Petition to do just that. And it couldn't come at a better time.


Believe it or not, during a time of increased scandals and ineffectiveness in Turtle Bay, the Senate Appropriations Committee has approved a bill (S. 2809) which includes funds to secure a loan for the United Nations to build a new $1.3 billion headquarters.

Perhaps we should follow a suggestion from a "Letter to the Editor" which appeared in the New York Post shortly after 9/11. The recommendation was that we build a new UN headquarters on the top floors of a rebuilt Twin Towers on the former World Trade Center site. Talk about having some "skin in the game," as they say.

My alternative suggestion is that if we're going to help with a new Headquarters for the UN, then let's build it on the island of Sumatra and make that our contribution to help rebuild South Asia in the wake of the Tsunami.
Click here to read the complete post.

They didn't REALLY Say That, Did they?

Michael Moore is racebaiting again and is joined by Fox News Political Analyst Bob Beckel; Ted Kennedy reminds us of his the "torture" of '69; environmentalists find the silver lining in the tsunami, radio pesonality Don Imus in an anti-semetic double play; a George Soros flashback; and finally, Jimmy Carter finally shows respect to a world leader (just not one of ours). All this in some interesting quotes this past week.

Michael Moore continues to race-bait in his email blast today discussing yesterday's objection to Ohio's electoral college votes. In contrasting it to the last Presidential election, he writes it's "unlike the 2000 election, when the black members of Congress were told to sit down and shut up." More revisionist history from the Big Fat Stupid White Guy. I just wish HE would actually "sit down and shut up."

Speaking of playing the race card ... Fox News Political Analyst Bob Beckel was on "Hannity & Colmes" last night discussing the Attorney General confirmation hearings of White House Counsel Alberto Gonzalez. Beckel implied Gonzalez's nomination was due the fact that he is hispanic, stating that the Bush adminstration "finally discovered affirmative action." An amazing thing to say about an administration with two black cabinet members. In fact, as noted in USA Today, "with little fanfare and not much credit, President Bush has appointed a more diverse set of top advisers than any president in history."

Ted Kennedy questioned Bush's nominee for Attorney General this week, referencing an article in the Washington Post and stating "you chaired several meetings at which various interrogation techniques were discussed. These techniques included the threat of live burial and water boarding, whereby the detainee is strapped to a board, forcibly pushed under water, wrapped in a wet towel and made to believe he might drown." Yes, I would imagine the fear of drowning could be considered torture. Thanks for brining that to our attention Senator Kennedy! Good thing for Ted that there was no Patriot Act around in 1969. [Kudos to the Washington Post.]

Environmentalists (you know, the groups that like nature better than people) "Rejoice over Tsunami Devastaion" (Newsmax) ... "There was an upside to the disaster. Honestly, I love this nature. Twenty years ago, it was like this, and full of trees. I haven't seen the beach this white in ages." Also, see "Environmentalists Surf Tsunami Tragedy" at Fox News and this Cox & Forkum EnviroMental Cartoon.

This week, Radio personality Don Imus referred to the publishers of the Mary and Carol Higgins Clark holiday thriller "The Christmas Thief" as "thieving Jews." According to an article in the New York Post, he then made matters worse by reportedly saying, "I apologize . . . I realize that's redundant."

He really said it, now we can just hope he really meant it .... George Soros replied to a question at a National Press Club luncheon this fall about what he would do if Bush won another term, stating "I shall go into some kind of monastery." Well, it looks like Congress isn't going to save him, just as it didn't save Alec Baldwin in 2000 when it was claimed he said he would move to France if Bush got elected. So just tell us where to write you George. (Unfortunately, you can still write to Alec Balwin at his apartment on Central Park West.)

BTW, here's an interesting page at Snopes about other celebrities that promised to leave the US if Bush won in 2000. With the exception of Pierre Salinger, most stayed here. Four years later, I don't think anyone really feels safe in France anymore, since the talk is of moving to Canada. (I would imagine it's because it's closer to the US and there's a greater chance we would protect Canada from a Jihad than we would France.)

FINALLY, in a special "The didn't really DO that, did they?" ... Former President and Chief US Apologist Jimmy Carter pays his respects to Yasser Arafat today.



As a postscript for the photo of the Clueless Jimmy Carter .... What he never realized (and apparently still doesn't to this day) is that Arafat was the biggest obstacle to peace for the Palestinan people. Here's an article that puts it into prespective from Arabs for Peace.
Click here to read the complete post.

Best "Non-Fiction"?

New York Film Critics apparently haven't learned from the fallout after Michael Moore's Oscar for his "schlockumentary" "Bowling for Columbine" and have just announced that "Fahrenheit 9/11" has won their award for "Best Non-Fiction Film." If this is, as they say, a "harbinger" for the Academy Awards, I'm sure we're in for another US-bashing from the BFSWM.

Footnote: Just saw that RevokeTheOscar.com is down, but I found a copy of the page here in case you're interested.

BTW, If you're wondering why I hate Michael Moore so much, I'd suggested reading my other posts, which include some of the pathetic race-baiting, US-bashing, terrorist-supporting comments he's made. If you still don't understand, I'd suggested visiting one of these sites ...

Fiftysix Deceits in Fahrenheit-911
Michael Moore Hates America
MooreLies
Click here to read the complete post.

Will Congress Rise to Michael Moore's Racebait

In a change of pace from his political devisivness, Michael Moore is now turning to race-baiting and putting the 109th session of Congress in his crosshairs.


In his latest email blast, he sends an open plea to the senate, asking any member to agree to let Rep. John Conyers have the floor so he can object to the vote count in Ohio. Then he goes on to say that

"A very embarrassing moment during the last session of Congress occurred in the first week when none of you would allow the members of Congress who were black to have the floor to object to the Florida vote count. Remember that? You thought no one would ever notice, didn't you? You certainly lucked out that night when the networks decided not to show how you shut down every single member of the Congressional Black Caucus."

I'm sorry, did they let any whites have the floor to object to the count? Here goes Michael Moore again in his strategy to divide and conquer. From what I recall, they didn't let ANYONE have the floor to object and to imply they were prevented from speaking specifically because they were black is reprehensible.

Perhaps he's repeated these kinds of statements so often that he begins to believe they're facts, and not opinions or theories. For example, he still thinks Al Gore won in 2000 and Kerry "should have" won this year. Quoting Moore again in today's email, "It's rough to lose two elections in a row when the first one you actually won and the second one you should have won." Well, what does "actually" mean? Did the Supreme Court say that Gore won, but Bush decided to ignore them? Did Gore show up with the moving van in January 2001 and Bush had already moved in? I can't for the life of me understand that one. But then I'm equally confused by "should have won." Perhaps that should be followed with "... if I didn't shoot off my mouth and drive every moderate and Independent vote to the GOP."



BTW, since I think Barak Obama (D-IL) is a better spokesman for black Democrats in Congress than Michael Moore, perhaps his readers should consider the Senator's comments on the topic from today's Washington Times ...

"The election is over and President Bush won fair and square, so I don't think we need to challenge the election, but we continue to have chronic problems in our voting system," he said. "Some of the practices in Ohio were clearly illegal and disenfranchised voters and, let's be real about this, some Republicans were denied their rights to vote as well."

Click here to read the complete post.

Breaking News: al Zarqawi Reportedly Arrested [Updated 1/5]

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi reportedly arrested in Iraq

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi reportedly arrested in Iraq
(itar-tass.com)
Updated: 2005-01-04 14:37

Abu Mus'ab al-Zarqawi, whom the US occupation authorities declared to be the "target number one" in Iraq, has been arrested in the city of Baakuba, the Emirate newspaper al-Bayane reported on Tuesday referring to Kurdish sources.



Al-Zarqawi, leader of the terrorist group Al-Tawhid Wa'al-Jihad, was recently appointed the director of the Al-Qaeda organisation in Iraq.

The newspaper's correspondent in Baghdad points out that a report on the seizure of the terrorist, on whom the US put a bounty of US$10 million, was also reported by Iraqi Kurdistan radio, which at one time had been the first to announce the arrest of Saddam Hussein.

There have been no official reports about the arrest of the terrorist. Al-Zarqawi, 38, a Jordanian, whose real name is Ahmad al-Khalayleh, aims to turn Iraq into a "new Afghanistan".

According to Arab press data, Al-Tawhid Wa'al-Jihad group has divided Iraq into several emirates. The group's independent subdivisions at a strength of 50 to 500 militants operate in the cities of Al-Falluja, Al-Qaim, Diala, and Samarra.

The personnel of the group is on the whole 1,500-strong and includes Iraqis and citizens of Arab and Islamic countries. There are demolition experts and missilemen among them.

The group has depots of weapons and explosives in various parts of the country. It intends to frustrate the upcoming parliamentary elections that are scheduled for the end of this month. Al-Tawhid Wa'al-Jihad threatens to do away with Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi and members of the interim government.

1/5/05 UPDATE: Though the story was reported today at AlJazeera, citing al-Bayane as the source as well, unfortunately there has not yet been any confirmation of Al Zarqawi's capture. I'm sure this is much to Michael Moore's delight ...

From Mike's Letter ...

"The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not "insurgents" or "terrorists" or "The Enemy." They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win."

BTW, Michael, the Insurgents are not "Iraqis who have risen up" but Al Queda thugs and mercenaries pouring in from other Arab states.
Click here to read the complete post.

"Kofi" Brewing

If you look up the word "Joe" in the dictionary, you'll find this definition: "Brewed Coffee". Well, according to Senator Joe Lieberman (D-Connecticut), things in Turtle Bay have come to a boil and Joe believes it's time to serve up some changes.

As reported today in Newsmax, "Influential Democratic Senator Joseph Lieberman said Monday that the United Nations faces a crisis of confidence because of the failed leadership of Secretary General Kofi Annan - and suggested that the top diplomat should consider resigning".

Senator Lieberman always tells it like it is, and he isn't afraid to cross party lines to do so. A prime example is his views on the the war in Iraq.

"Saddam Hussein was a ticking time bomb that would go off and kill a lot of Americans until we stopped him, and that law called for a change of regime in Baghdad. The man was a brutal dictator. He supported terrorism. He hated the United States of America. Of course, we're safer with him gone. Our soldiers are certainly safer, because he was encouraging the insurgency that's going on and keeping so many of the Iraqis in fear. The world is safer any time a tyrant and mass murderer like this, hater of the United States, is captured. That's self-evident."*

(I just had to provide the link to Senator Lieberman's quote in the DailyKos Blog, since it's one of the few things I've read there that makes sense.)

Click here to read the complete post.

Can the ACLU be Far Behind?

In Daniel Pipes New Year's day email, he writes about CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) being named a defendant in a 9/11 Terror class action lawsuit. Here's one of the sections of the complaint that he quotes, which I find most interesting ...

"The unique role played by CAIR and CAIR-Canada is to manipulate the legal systems of the United States and Canada in a manner that allows them to silence critics, analysts, commentators, media organizations, and government officials by leveling false charges of discrimination, libel, slander and defamation. In addition, both organizations have actively sought to hamper governmental anti-terrorism efforts by direct propaganda activities aimed at police, first-responders, and intelligence agencies through so-called sensitivity training. Their goal is to create as much self-doubt, hesitation, fear of name-calling, and litigation within police departments and intelligence agencies as possible so as to render such authorities ineffective in pursuing international and domestic terrorist entities."

The first thing I wondered after reading that is can the ACLU be far behind? They're seemingly complicit in CAIR's goals and appear to have no trouble in supporting the organization. For example, they've recently joined CAIR in spearheading an investigation of a Christian school in Texas which questioned a Muslim applicants interested in "joining and oprganization whose membership is basically in total disagreement with your religious beliefs", based on the Quran's apparent call for violence against non-Muslims.

While on the surface, the case may have merits, I seriously question whether the ACLU should be joining forces with an organization with know ties to terrorism, as well as links to organizations on the US State Department's list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations.

More on CAIR's Message of Violence

FOOTNOTE: CAIR and ACLU joined forces shortly after 9/11 in an effort to prevent law enforcement agencies from contacting Arab-Americans about the tragedy. View footnote in comments.
Click here to read the complete post.

"End the War", and then ... ?

As radicals and progressives, as well as some liberals, are going about their planned disruption the Presidential Inauguration (or as they call it, the "J20 Action"), perhaps they can take a moment to answer one question that I have yet to see addressed on any of their sites calling for an end to the war and the immediate removal of US troops ... "Then what?" Seriously.

War is not good, young people are dying and the reasons we entered the war in the first place may have been dubious. (At the very least, the intelligence we based the decision on was flawed.) That said, what does anyone suggest? If we pull our troops out of Iraq and just walk away, we're basically creating a terrorist state that will spread like wildfire throughout the Middle East. It will also assure the citizens of Iraq are once again facing oppression and the torture of dissidents speaking out for the freedoms they never had before the US brought down Saddam's brutal regime. (I used to think that all radicals, progressives and liberals are against oppression and torture.)

And please don't suggest we turn everything over to the UN, who sat on their hands through years of resolutions and sanctions against Iraq while Saddam's people were starved and tortured so he can build weapons and palaces -- apparently with the help of other member nations.

So, once again I ask ANYONE ... "What do we do next?"
Click here to read the complete post.

It's About the Tragedy ...

Kudos to John Podhoretz. From today's NY Post ...

IT'S ABOUT THE TRAGEDY - NOT MORE BUSH-BASHING

THE political and ideological exploitation of perhaps the worst natural disaster in all our lifetimes is almost beyond belief — were it not for the fact that nothing these days is beyond belief.

Even as tears spring into the most hard-hearted person's eyes at both the unimaginable scope of the tragedy and at the wrenching individual stories of loss, opinion leaders just can't help themselves.

They are using this cataclysm as little more than cheap debate fodder about the nature and character of the United States, its president and its citizens.

Link to the Complete Article



Click here to read the complete post.

Why It's Tough to be a "Liberal"

No matter how much I admire the resolve of George Bush in overcoming the global threat of Islamic Fundamentalists, it's hard to find much else embrace in the Republican Party's agenda. But it's even more difficult to associate myself with the label of "liberal," regardless of how many issues I support from the left. If you find that hard to understand, just read this Boston Globe column by Jeff Jacoby ... "Hate Speech from the Left"

Click here to read the complete post.

NBC's "The Right Wing"

I'd like to see the expression on Martin Sheen's face when he reads some of the scripts to "The West Wing," since many of the story lines and dialogue seem to be taken out of a Karl Rove playbook.

From preemptive strikes to the assassination of a foreign leader based on evidence he's planning a terrorist attack on the US to statements like "they'll like us when we win" in response to the Islamic communities sentiments about the United States. There's the conviction of the bright, articulate and optimistic Deputy White House Counsel, Republican Ainsley Hayes. And how can we forget Toby Zeigler's stifling of inappropriate comments of the progressive White House Poet Laureate and his Ann Coulter-like pronouncements in the UN speech he wrote in the "Night Five" episode which include:

"The world will be free when we have freedom of speech for every nation. The world will be free when there is freedom to worship for everyone. The world will be free when we finally shake off the rusted chains of tyranny. Whether in the guise of facist dictatorship or economic slavery, or ethnic hostility or the crushing yoke of Islamic fanaticism."

In defending his position, Toby concluded "there's a lot of reasons why they hate us. You know when they're gonna like us? When we win." Wow, Donald Rumsfield couldn't have said it any better. And if he did, he'd be crucified by the left for saying it.

Clearly, these aren't easy choices to make in this day and age, which is really brought home in the "Isaac and Ishmael" episode. It's a delicate balance between ensuring civil liberties and at the same time, protecting our very existance from those who want to kill us for who we are.

In case you haven't figured it out yet, I'm a HUGE fan of the show. I watch it every Wednesday evening, as well as reruns every night on Bravo. And believe it or not, it was a big influence on my support for George Bush in this year's elections. Just to give you a sense of perspective, I'm pro-choice, support gay unions and I had voted for Gore in 2000 - believing Bush Jr. was a "f*cking moron" up until 9/11.

While the Bartlet adminstration is comprised of Liberal Democrats, their actions frequently run counter to much of the typical rhetoric of their political base. The show helped me to gain great respect for the office of the President and the strength of character it takes to lead this nation, particularly in such challenging times. Not to mention the strong sense of civic duty exhibited by those working in the admistration. And the Democrat's rehtoric, combined with the petty attacks of Michael Moore, George Soros, etc. just pushed me further and further away from their party's candidates.

That said, I find it amusing how many Republicans claim the don't watch it. I had made reference to the show when speaking with Delegates at the Republican National Convention this summer and not one person admitted to watching it. It's also surpising considering that Bush exhibits the kind of decisive leadership that many admire in fictious President Bartlet, but that liberal Democrats can't seem to find in their own party.

That reminds me of one of my favorite quotes from Toby Zeigler, "if you think demonizing people who are trying to govern responsibly is the way to protect our liberal base, then speaking as a liberal, go to bed, would you please?"

Finally, this blog wouldn't be any fun without at least one shot on Michael Moore ... Contrary to what the bloated bloviator may think, Sam Seaborn put it best when he said "Not only do terrorists always fail at what they're after, they pretty much always succeed in strengthening whatever it is they're against".

Click here to read the complete post.