Monday, June 18, 2007

Into the Dark..

Today’s post may be constituted by a more “rambling” style of touching on many topics more briefly then normal. Then again, it just may not. My reason for such a suggestion, however, is because I have been short on updates lately due to the busyness of my schedule away from the computer. Therefore, I have all these topics in my head that I had intended to delve into during the past week but had not had the opportunity.

The first piece of business is wholly personal but relates in many ways to our normal topics at hand. This week, I get the opportunity to travel to the wretched heart of the evil beast. What does this mean?

On Thursday, I fly to Washington D.C.

Of course, I can’t be completely negative. Despite the lack of common sense and foresight that I attribute to much of the population of D.C. (and I am sorry if the shoe doesn’t fit in particular cases, but it sure seems that D.C. is always ready to surrender to ultra Liberal doctrines regardless of the obviousness of the stupidity of these doctrines to those of us outside of the capitol city’s confines), I am really looking forward to my vacation. In fact, I love D.C. For a student with political interests such as mine, there isn’t a locale more suited for my tastes and desires then D.C. Yet, I often feel that my political leanings make me a minority while visiting.

Yet, I will not allow this to be an obstacle for me. In fact, part of my trip will be dedicated to solidifying my opportunity to transfer to American University. Not only am I willing to submit to an occasional visit to the heart of the Democratic Party’s base (or, at least the base this side of the San Andreas fault), I am also explicitly attempting to move there permanently. Call it my attempt to effectively slay the beast from its most vulnerable area: the inside.

Moving on.

The first topic that I want to comment on, outside of my own personal adventures noted above, is some anecdotes spoken by Bill O’Reilly. I typically agree with much the man says. However, I also recognize his bias despite his claims to be “fair and balanced.” The statements that he made that I am about to reference were uttered about a week ago, so I am not going to attempt to find an exact quote. However, to paraphrase, he made light of Fred Thompson’s pending run for the Republican presidential nomination. One comment that he made in particular struck me as short-sighted.

He suggested that Senator Thompson’s quick accession in the polls is attributed solely to his television celebrity status. He also suggested that those of us who support the Senator do so because of this celebrity status and not because of his political stature.

I, of course, disagree.

What I will concede is that Senator Thompson’s television popularity has brought “automatic” attention to his nomination attempt. To say that his supporters rely solely on this status as our faith of his competency is… well… hogwash.

Senator Thompson’s status only shifted the focus of light from the current candidates to one that many of us feel more wholly represents what we want in the person leading our political party. I don’t support Senator Thompson because he acted well on Law and Order. Instead, I support him because he continually showed support for Conservative ideals while in the political field.

His celebrity status only made me aware of a well-suited candidate whom I might not have considered otherwise. I am thankful for his status, but not ashamed. Nor am I am using this status as a tenant for support.

So, Mr. O’Reilly, I am sorry but your assessment was wrong. Senator Thompson’s candidacy is genuine. The current field of representatives has, in so many ways, already violated my own core of conservative values. While Senator Thompson is not without fault in this regard, I truly feel that in every position that has found himself politically, had I been in his shoes, I would have made the same choices. In the end, for me, there is no better metric for assessing a candidate.

P.S. If you are a Republican and you are running for President, there are certain principles that you can not violate. One of the most important of these principles is that represented by the second amendment. Another principle that, in this day and age unfortunately, precludes you from being my chosen presidential nominee is having the title of former governor of the socialist state of Massachusetts.

So it becomes McCain versus Thompson for me. And as much as I value McCain’s lifelong service to our country, I feel that Senator Thompson is simply a better choice for president.

Okay, so I have more issues in mind.

For example, I wanted to touch on this rumor that some element of the Defense Department was considering research into a so-called “Gay Bomb.” I am surprised that this “news” hasn’t been suggested to be little more than Fark. Did anyone actually read the report? How much money was actually forwarded towards the development of this project? If, very little (I.E. NONE), then why the commotion? Is this news? But, like I said, I wanted to touch on this subject, among other things. However, I have gone on long enough for tonight. I hope to return tomorrow and then, I am sure, there will be another brief hiatus as I travel to D.C.

Thanks for your attention.

1 comment:

Old NFO said...

Concur on all comments- Since you will be moving here- a suggestion, DON'T live in DC if you value your life! Live in VA and get a carry permit!

Re Thompson vs. McCain, agreed, but I really think it will be Thompson/Guliani vs. Hillary/Obama.

Thompson is more than a pretty face, but he will not carry the NE without Guliani, also Guliani will pull votes from Hillary in NYC and that "could" be the difference in NY.