This was supposed to be the Thought for the Day but it grew and grew.
Let us suppose for the sake of argument that the Democratic-Media allegations against President Bush were true.
What if thirty-two years ago he really wasin fact a dissipated, substance abusing, slacker who used his family connections to enter and leave the Texas Air National Guard at his convenience?
So what? Even if the allegations were true then, those allegations are clearly not true now. President Bush has clearly demonstrated sober and rational leadership in the face of the worst horror inflicted upon America since the bombing of Pearl Harbor. He has shown us that he has learned from experience and that he has grown as a person and as a leader.
On the other hand, Mr. Kerry was in the past (at best) a posturing toad and appears to have remained so to this day.
So who do want in the White House for the next four years? A habitual poseur, or someone who has demonstrated that he has learned and grown from experience?
Now, as I was typing the first part of this rant another thought occurred to me. (No, it didn't hurt.)
The whining on the part of of Donks that the son of a fighter pilot had volunteered to be a fighter pilot instead of waiting to be drafted as a mere grunt makes as much sense as someone complaining about the son of a mounted knight training to become a mounted knight instead of waiting to drafted as a mere pikeman along with the rest of the peasants.
Which is to say that in my mind it makes no sense at all.