Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (19957)	12/15/2003 7:37:33 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 793649

..........<edited>The Wall Street Journal published a series of memos from Senator Patrick Leahy's offices which showed - in true smoking gun fashion - the Democrat Party's complete obeisance toward the radical special interest groups which rule over it. The memos spell out exactly how/what/when/where and why the President's judicial nominees must be stonewalled. Miguel Estrada is "especially dangerous" because "he is Latino" (and conservative, left notably unsaid). A judgeship which might have affected the Michigan Law School affirmative action case is delayed because the new judge would be able to "review the case and vote on it" - presumably against. A memo, addressed to Senator Durbin and dated from November of 2001 argues against filibustering nominees until the following year when "presumably, the public will be more tolerant of partisan dissent." So, a month and a half after September 11th, the greatest attack ever launched on American soil, while Americans were reeling, the Democrats were coldly calculating on how best to thwart the President. Memogate has somewhat successfully been turned into Staffergate, with the mainstream media far more interested in how the memos were leaked than in their explosive contents. Yet the memos are astounding because they prove, beyond a doubt, that the Democrats are deliberately stonewalling and obfuscating for purely political reasons. And that September 11th appears to have affected them not. This partisan bickering lifted to new heights with the news of Bush's Thanksgiving trip to the troops in Baghdad. The video was exuberant - President Bush striding in to a swelling chorus of hearty cheers, troops jumping up on their chairs in order to get a better view, grinning soldiers being served by the President himself. Bush was obviously happy to be there and the enthusiasm of the troops was infectious. Bush's decision to go to hot zone Baghdad was personally gutsy and it was the right thing to do. The Left was typically churlish in return. Besides Hillary's sniping, the New York Times sniveled because they hadn't been invited. On CNN, Howard Kurtz lamented the secrecy surrounding the trip, as though the media wouldn't have satellite phoned every reporter in the region immediately upon finding out. Years of questioning America's validity have taken their toll on the media soul. It is almost a given that - on any issue - they will dive headfirst onto the Blame America bandwagon. As pundit William A. Mayer has written, if they'd been there in 1944 the headlines would have read, "Tragic French Offensive Stalled on Beaches, Thousands Dead." Except that then, we would have called it as it is. <edited>......... gopusa.com