Blogging has been light lately (something about my bosses at work expecting me to show up and all...), but there are a few issues I'd like to talk about briefly.
1) Michael Moore vs. Fred Thompson. Thompson made a comment about Moore allegedly going to Cuba illegally for the director's latest attempt to get the concept of a documentary right, "Sicko." Moore responded by challenging Thompson to a debate about it and about American health care. Thompson responded with a major brush-off. Moore overreacted and bragged about his debate skills in a reiteration of his original challenge. No need, Mikey. Thompson just whupped your butt and you don't even have the sense to know it. If you want to see Thompson's classic response to Moore, it was up at the Drudge Report, and should still be in the archives for a few more days. You have to see it to see how brilliantly Thompson dispatched Moore.
2) The Democrats vs. Fox News Channel. The Democrats finally have a leader in the pack of candidates. John Edwards was the first Democrat to reject an offer by Fox News Channel to debate citing that FNC was "biased" and "an arm of the Republican Party," and before you know it other candidates followed suit. Now, they've released their list of televised debates and Fox News Channel is off the list. Of course, CNN, MSNBC, and the major networks are on the list. So, let me get this straight. Fox News is biased, but the major mouthpieces of the Democratic Party are just fine? Comparing the Republican debate MSNBC hosted and the one Fox News hosted, it's clear the real reason Edwards and company are running from the latter is because Fox News might actually ask questions more challenging than "How are you?" Yep, Edwards broke away from the pack as a leader...and he lead them right off a cliff. Running away from Fox News only makes the Democrats look foolish, elitist, and hypocritical.
3) Paul Wolfowitz vs. the World Bank and the Democrats. Wolfowitz hired a girlfriend to the World Bank and gave her a nice big raise. And now, thanks to George Soros and more liberal elements within the World Bank, Wolfowitz is in trouble. Of course, Democrats are howling about how "corrupt" Wolfowitz is and how he needs to step down as the head of the World Bank. Three problems I see with this situation. First, the Soros connection should make a thinking person wonder whether Wolfowitz's actions are worthy of his ousting or if this inquiry is nothing more than the latest attempt to get President Bush by proxy. Second, the Democrats have zero credibility on this issue in the wake of former New Jersey Governor (and Democrat) Jim McGreevy. Third, our participation in the World Bank gives it validity it hasn't earned. For the uninitiated, the World Bank basically takes money from prosperous countries and gives it to less prosperous countries as "loans" that never have to be paid back. Why? Because it's unlikely they'll EVER pay them back due to their poor economies, which requires them to ask for more money from the World Bank. If I didn't know any better, I'd swear the World Bank was modeled after our Congress.
4) Congress vs. President Bush. Congressional Democrats pushed through a pork-laden bill to fund the war in Iraq, complete with a timetable for our withdrawal, even after Bush told them he would veto it. He did, and now the troops aren't getting funding yet...all because of a political game. Democrats knew Bush would veto it, so they threw in the poison pills they did to gin up a political controversy. But they still "support the troops"; just ask them. With support like this, the troops don't need an enemy. But Bush has been getting the last laugh. For all the Democrats' talk about Bush's low approval ratings, Congress's has been lower. So much for the "will of the people" being with the Democrats.
That's all the time I have for now. Enjoy!