John Q. Liberal: Who Are You?

It’s news worthy that Mrs. Kerry says, "I have to say that John Edwards is very beautiful …"? Is it that you can’t find anything substantive to say or that you all just want to feel gossipy in front of 1,400 people? I don’t understand.

Her husband keeps on repeating the bit about there being more blacks in prison than college. Quite to my amazement, I was one of the first to debunk that “liberal fact” and got internet press wide enough to make me giggle. Yet he keeps on saying it. The facts are so easy to find. He must believe, therefore, that facts do not matter and that most people listening to him don’t care more about his rhetoric than the facts. What kind of speaker and audience is this? I don’t understand people adopt such a mentality.

The same people take W’ “16 Words” on Africa and Iraq in the SOTU a couple of years ago and start the “Bush Lied” campaign far and wide. Now that their ammunition turns out to be as false as the government scientist that cooked the data on electro-magnetic waves causing cancer, one would think an apology or correction or something would be in order. After all, W was right. Nothing forthcoming. That tells me that you will accuse someone of lying, a dereliction of duty, without consideration for the wake. You care only to make someone look badly. Then when the damage is done and it turns out that you were wrong, you change the topic. That seems rather unfair and infantile to me. But you have the constitutionally strengthened power of the press. Why don’t you respect it more? I don’t understand people that act so flippantly.

The Veepstakes. Kerry says he never offered the job to McCain. Wow. Kerry says, about Edwards, that the White House is not the place to learn on the job. The country is at a war-footing. Health-care costs have a causal relationship to med-mal litigation expense. Kerry picks Edwards. No national security experience. Made his money as a tort litigator. But he smiles a lot and appears to spend a lot of time each morning in front of a mirror. And Kerry could not keep his hands off him. This is our country we are running, boys, not a high school homecoming parade. I don’t understand how to take Kerry seriously if he picks Edwards as the best choice for veep.

The press soaks up Bubba “hinting” that Hillary, our favorite Wet Hen in a Pantsuit, could run for POTUS as early as 2012. The press falls to be critical or analytical of such a statement. Pathetic. Bubba could not say “as early as 2008” because that would imply that Kerry could lose in 2004 or not deserve re-election if he wins. Hillary in 2012? Sixty-four years old running; 65 in office. She’s only 56 now and look at her! If Edwards floats onto a ticket because he’s “pretty,” how do we travel in such a different direction a couple of years down the road? Bulls rarely age well, and Hillary is no exception. Oh, yes, I forgot. Hillary is the smartest woman in the country. No wait, when she testified, she couldn’t recall so many details. Including how her fingerprints got on the billing records located in the White House that were under subpoena and no one could find. But I listened to Condi Rice testify. Now, that’s a smart woman. The press position? The liberal establishment position? Not to be understood.

Liberals cut the military budget, including pay rate increases, every time they are in control. A decrease in the rate of increase is a “cut” if it applies to social programs, yet they say they support the military. Soldiers sign up for and are trained to engage in combat, yet the liberals present disgruntled soldiers as the norm when combat actually occurs. Our military is rebuilding the infrastructure of two nations yet all the press can report on is a claim by some kid that there was compelled oral sex in that Abu prison (a claim which is highly suspect). W is skewered for invoking a commonly used troop turnover restriction and thus requiring longer tours of duty (“but our boys want to come home”) and the press merely looks at W for a reaction when the democrats suggest we should re-institute the draft. This entire topic is discussed in a decidedly unserious, lack-of-facts manner. I fail to understand how liberals expect to be treated with intellectual respect when their positions are so contradictory and so clearly lacking research.

The more I read critically the liberal presentation of the world the more I want to dismiss the entire lot of people as irrelevant. How can I take seriously a group of people that repeat as fact things so easily disproved? How can I take seriously a group of people that view the world so black and white? This last sentence is worthy of illustration because they toss it in W’s face all the time. Is it possible that W has a different view of the world than John Q. Liberal? As is said about juries, why can’t reasonable minds differ? But, no, not in John Q.’s world. W doesn’t have a different view. W lies. W wants to take the constitution away. W wants to kill our young men for oil. It’s black and white. But not if the protagonist is liberal. France sells weapons to Iraq in violation of U.N. restrictions; France takes hundreds of millions of dollars in oil-for-food money and doesn’t provide the food; France vetoes our efforts to go into Iraq (because it knows we will find the evidence to prove the above, and we have) – and we are supposed to cow-tow to them because, as the liberals say, we just don’t understand the nuance of the relationship.

John Q. Liberal is probably fun at a party, sometimes. But to run my country? No thanks. Too immature for the realities of the world. Too focused on having a good time. Too, well, silly.