Mired In Miers, Caught Up In Katrina and All Shook Up!
I'd like to take a moment to reflect on the big three news items that are currently circulating in the MSM:
Harriet Miers: I've been rather amused by the way this is being covered. The MSM seems to be focusing more on the dissent from the right than the woman herself. They are absolutely relishing the fact that many Republicans are not happy with Dubya over his pick. I've gone back and forth myself over her nomination and I've come to a conclusion. We've trusted G.W. this far, why not ride this pony to the end?
Harriet Miers may not be the uber-conservative we all hoped for but as long as she is dedicated to applying the Constitution, not "interpreting" it (interpreting the Constitution gives too much leeway to activist judges), we should be okay. G.W. thinks she's the right person for the job and maybe he's right. It's really rather silly to be questioning his judgment now. If we allow this to divide us (those of us on the right) before the '06 elections, we're going to lose some seats. To preserve party unity and further unity throughout the country, we should sit back and give her an honest shake without all of the cutting remarks and political maneuvering.
Hurricane Katrina: The MSM has been avoiding Ray Nagin's name like the plague. It seems to me that they are trying desperately to make sure that everyone makes the automatic association between Bush and New Orleans while overlooking the fact that there are other layers of government besides the federal government. What could their motivation possibly be? Why, the protection of these precious Democrats, that's what. If you pay attention, all of the polling asks whether or not people think Bush is responsible for the chaos that followed the hurricane/flood. Very seldom is anyone else's name mentioned anywhere in the story. You'd think Bush was the president, the mayor of New Orleans and the governor of Louisiana all at the same time. It's shameful that few people are actually calling them out on this.
The earthquake: Yes, I mean the one in Pakistan. It seems to me that the MSM decided this was the perfect opportunity to remind people that bin Laden is still on the loose by raising the question of how he fared. True, I thought the same thing when I heard what happened but it was a passing thought. The truth is that whether bin Laden is dead or alive makes no difference. The communications that we've intercepted from top Al-Qaida leaders makes it pretty clear that our strategy is working. It also makes it clear that the Democrats and the terrorists are on the same page. Forcing an immediate withdrawal of our troops from Iraq is at the top of both agendas. Did anyone catch the memo on that?
The earthquake is definitely a tragedy but I believe that some good may come of it. Through the aid that we are sending to those affected, they may see that we are not the "devils" that bin Laden and other terrorists make us out to be. When we are over there providing food, shelter, clothing and medical attention, we are spreading the message that we care about them. This may ring false for the die-hard terrorists but for the average Pakistani, it could be enough to change their opinion of us. Oh, kudos to Pres. Musharraf for hounding al-Qaida. They're pretty pissed at him for getting so close to killing or capturing so many top al-Qaida leaders. We may soon find out that the big cheese himself is rotting in a cell somewhere in an undisclosed location and being interrogated by people who don't necessarily adhere to our guidelines for questioning suspects. I'd be in no hurry to take possession of him.
Anyhow, just a few of my observations for my inaugural post. Thanks for letting me share them with you.
posted by Nightcrawler @ 1:21 PM
6 comments
6 Comments:
Your style of writing is entertaining and informative at the same time, very nice!
Just a note on "interpreting" the constitution:
All justices have to interpret the words of the constitution. There is not a matter of some justices obeying the innately obvious meaning in the Constitution and some playing semantics to adjust the meaning to their own ends (well, maybe occasionally).
One source puts it this way:
"When the courts must decide a case, the meaning of the laws in question is not always clear. The Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees equal protection of the laws, has been particularly difficult to interpret over the years because of the ambiguous nature of the concept of equality..."
Just a clarification, as much of this talk about getting justices who do not "intepret" the Constitution really bugs me.
And Justices turning to International Law instead of the Constitution in order to make a decision really bugs me!
Any opinion that I have about Harriet Miers has nothing to do with the fact that Republicans are unhappy with the choice. (Just a side note, though, do you know why they are unhappy? Because it seems like issues you yourself would probably speak out about) It concerns me that she is a close confidant of the president and that she has never before been a judge. In the case of any president, it is a liiiittle suspicious to give top positions to your friends, rather than those who are most qualified. She may be good at what she currently does, but so are many doctors and teachers and electricians, none of whom ALSO qualify to sit on the Supreme Court. Certainly she works with the law, but there is no doubt that there are other current judges who have worked long and hard to become qualified for a position such as this.
Regarding the hurricane, I am quite sure that politics is the last thing that needed to be involved. Fault was admitted, and recovery has begun, and worrying about the reputation of your political party is absolutely irrelevant.
Same thing goes for the earthquake. Thousands of people have died. Be happy that we're able to help in yet another disaster, rather than relfecting on how it will affect our reputation. It also still doesn't change the fact that we're occupying another country. Going along with that, I CARE ABOUT WHERE BIN LADEN IS. 9/11 was HIS plan. Let's all dance around for joy that we've captured another man who had nothing to do with yet, yet have now decided to stop caring about the mastermind of it all. And since when do we trust information from al-Qaida leaders? Interesting that you'd credit them as a reliable source. Is that not what they WANT us to think?
One last thing--have you heard anything of the conflict within the Democratic party about withdrawing from Iraq? Even Democratic leaders are unable to agree on what should be done, it's not just an entire party-related view.
Allisoni, let me clarify something. I could give a rat's ass about the reputation of the Republican party. I am concerned about turning back the tide of socialism and restoring the lost glory of this country. If the Republicans want to blow their own feet off, fine with me. I just want a viable alternative at the ballot box. I'd love to vote Libertarian but it's about like voting Green. Pointless. As far as leaving politics out of it, who the hell is playing politics Allison? Who was threatening to punch who? Who was using profanity to describe the reaction of the federal government when the schoolbuses sat in feet of stagnant water?
As far as bin Laden goes, I'm glad you care about where he is. I'm looking at the matter from a functional point of view. The man is serving as a defacto tour guide in the mountains between Pakistan and Afghanistan, doing his best not to get his dialysis machine blown up by SOF. That suits me just fine. At this point, it doesn't matter where he is in terms of functionality.
Again, the reputation I'm concerned about when dealing with Pakistan is that of our country, not any one political party. I'm going to be nice and assume you were simply mistaken and leave it be at that.
Since 9/11 it has been trademark of the Republican party to use tragedy as a selling point. That is exactly what has happened here.
Post a Comment
<< Home