I was enjoying the warmth of my Starbuck's French Roast this morning, anticipating the arrival of my Boca Java order, when I hear something that makes me shake my head. People have 'political consultants' who tell them, I'm assuming, who to support and what to think of the issues of the day. Several years ago I heard that the actor Richard Dreyfuss employed one. I thought, well, ok. He goes on and on in interviews in his 'intellectual' mode and apparently that is courtesy of the hired help.
Now, I hear that Stephen Spielberg also throws money at one. He and the other two Hollywood guys that make up Dreamworks are hosting a fundraiser for Barack Obama on February 20. If an attendee agrees to pledge to raise $46,000 for the candidate, then that person gets to attend a private affair with the candidate. In the past, all three of these guys have been big Clinton supporters. Spielberg likes Hillary and contributed to her Senate bid, but also likes Obama and has a 'personal relationship' with Edwards. So, you see his need for the political consultant. Poor guy can't make up his mind. He's a busy guy. Let's just hire out these pesky decisions.
I'm seeing King Cakes in the grocery stores. Galveston will kick off the Mardi Gras season on February 9 with the usual parades, etc. I need to jot down a reminder to order a King Cake from our favorite bakery in Lafayette. They ship. I can't abide by those imposters in the stores here. I need the real deal.
The left in this country, in the media in particular, is using the Vice President's daughter as a way to try to beat up on him in interviews again. First, Kerry invokes Mary Cheney into the 2004 campaign debates, then Wolf Blitzer decides to dust off that trick yesterday in an interview. He says to the VP that he 'symphathizes' with the two Cheney daughters. What the hell does that mean? He says 'we all' are happy about another grandchild for the Cheney's. Who are 'we all' and why would that matter to the VP? Did he ask for approval? So, when Cheney firmly but calmly refuses to answer Wolf's question concerning the remarks of groups like Focus on the Family about the pregnancy, well, Wolf is all defensive and states the question is a fair and justifiable one. What an idiot.
Those Democrats. They are all for gay rights, aren't they? Isn't it those neanderthal Republicans who are so mean and prejudiced? I would say that using a daughter of a politician and her sexual preference as fuel for your petty assertations is plenty discriminatory. Go pick on someone else.
A non-binding resolution was voted on in the Foreign Relations committee yesterday in the Senate. Now it will go to the floor for a vote by the entire Senate. It is a resolution stating that the Senate does not support the surge of troops into Iraq. The only Republican on the committee that voted in favor of it is Chuck Hagel. Hagel is a disgrace. He ranted on and on yesterday, belittling the other Republicans on the committee for voicing opposition to the resolution. He looked like he was coming unglued. Hagel is the Dems favorite Republican. He can always be counted on to go their way, especially if it is to embarrass the President. Then they say, see, we have bi-partisan support, Hagel voted with us.
Does that mean Republicans have bi-partisan support every time Joe Lieberman votes with them? The media heralds Hagel, he's a maverick. Not the same opinion given to Lieberman, though.
So, the Dems support the troops. They have an odd way of showing it. Senator Barbara Boxer yesterday in the committee meeting was boasting she was an anti-war vote before the war. She now insists the Senate cut off funding for the war effort. Right now. This resolution doesn't go far enough.
The resolution and those that will follow, are meaningless. They only make those voting in favor of them feel good. The president is still Commander in Chief. As he says, he's the 'decider'. I agree with thinking voices like Newt Gringrich who said recently, "defeating Bush is more important than defeating the enemy". They continue to hold up some who disagree with decisions being made, hopefully other Republicans, and claim moral authority. "Surrounding defeat with heroism", Gringrich says. President Bush announced the formation of a War Council to bring in voices from all sides. No deal, say the Dems. They aren't participating on no stinkin' council. The council would require forming solutions and other options. That would be productive. Productive solutions are not in the best interest of the Dems. It's all about defeating Bush. It hasn't been about the best interests of this country from the beginning. A unified country would have never emboldened the enemy as it is now.
They are simply waiting us out now.
Senator McCain, who used to be the media's darling, their maverick in the Republican party, asked Lt. General David Petraeus, the incoming commander of the Iraq Multi-National Forces, what effect on the troops the resolution would have. He told Sen. McCain it serves no good purpose to the troops and emboldens the enemy. Petraeus was told by all the members of the Senate Armed Forces Committee that he is the right man for the job. Real bi-partisan support. But the Dems have no intention to listening to him.
But they support the troops.