The endless analysis by psychologists and pundits about the Edwards and how they should handle the issue of Mrs. Edward's cancer and the campaign, fails to address the main question.

Running for President is not about what is best for the candidate or his family, but what is best for the country.  John Edwards is one of the top three candidates on the Democrat side, which means that he could get his party's nomination.

A Presidential candidate needs every bit of his energy focused on the problems facing this nation.  I have a friend who died recently from breast cancer that had spread.  She and her husband went through almost two years of battling the illness.  There would have been no way that her husband could have run for President or assumed office during the ordeal.

The bottom line is that the candidates for President are running to become the leader of the free world.  The country cannot become distracted from the very serious issues that face our nation.  

As a country we are fighting for our very survival.  We have an enemy that wants to destroy us.  We need candidates that can focus on these issues and run for the good of the country.         

Sandra Lea Wise

Tony Snow announced yesterday that he will be having surgery this coming Monday to remove a mass that has grown in his stomach. He said that tests show that it is not malignant, but because of the intestinal cancer that he had last year, the mass needs to be removed right away.

My heartfelt prayers go out to Tony and his family. I love Tony. He left a thriving career in talk radio and in television to serve his country and represent this President.

I saw Tony on T.V. a couple of days before he made the announcement and I remember thinking how tired and run down he looked and I worried about his health. The job that he accepted, defending the good man who is our President, was taking it’s toll.

How could it not?  I myself am exhausted and discouraged trying to do the same thing, defend President Bush.  It seems like a hopeless cause, arguing over and over with some of my fellow conservative bloggers, who can’t figure out which of the two parties is the good one.

Finally, it came to me.  If the eight years of the Clinton scandals leading up to 9/11, didn’t do the job then nothing will. 

If seeing the corrupt Democrats play politics with our soldier's lives and the safety of our country, doesn’t paint the picture then nothing will. 

If hearing the terrorists themselves use the Democrat talking points while expressing their hatred for our nation, doesn’t tell the story then nothing will.

There is nothing left to say when the evidence is there but it can’t be seen.

My best, Tony.

Sandra Lea Wise

In 2000 the media received the shock of their lives. George Bush beat Al Gore and became President. The election was decided by only a few votes in Florida. No matter how many times those same votes were counted, Bush still won.

They counted and re-counted and couldn’t get the result that they wanted. Finally, so that we could have a President, the Supreme Court stepped in and stopped the counting and Bush became President.

That didn’t stop the media however, they continued counting for years and never got the desired outcome. Now they needed a new tactic. They would destroy Bush and resurrect Gore.

As I watched the coverage of the Senate yesterday, I realized that the media has finally accomplished what they set out to do.

The Senators were admonishing Mr. Bush to "come clean" on the firings of 8 Attorneys General.  They were accusing the White House of corruption and a cover-up.  The media was suggesting something equal to Watergate. The Senate will subpoena Bush’s close aids and Bush will be destroyed and possibly impeached!

Then there was a rumble, the earth trembled, the Senators looked up, a bright light appeared, the Savior of the world, the prophet, the movie star....the crowds parted, and He appeared....

IT WAS GORE!!!!

Sandra Lea Wise

I watched this great movie made in 1935 a couple of nights ago. I had never seen it all the way through.

It is the story of a young idealistic man (played by Jimmy Stewart) who is the President of a local Young Boys Association and hometown hero, who gets selected by a group of corrupt politicians to go to Washington as a Senator to fill the seat of one of " their own" who had died. The town supports him wholeheartedly and they give him a hero’s send off.

Once in Washington, Mr. Smith is overwhelmed by the history of the place, and after visiting the Lincoln monument, he decides that he is going to make a difference. When he goes to the Senate floor for the first time he can barely walk or speak because he is so nervous and in awe. The other Senators make fun of him due to his lack of sophistication.

Undaunted, he convinces his secretary to help him author a Senate Bill. It is to build a Boy’s Club for young boys to attend and learn the values of their country and the need to serve her. Little does he know that his bill conflicts with the plans of the corrupt leaders who are planning to build a dam at the same location, on land that they own, and thus profit from the deal.

They try to dissuade Mr. Smith from his Bill but when they realize they can’t, they accuse him of doing exactly what they are doing and pronounce him unfit to serve in the Senate. They have the entire media on their side which puts articles in the newspapers with lies about him.

When Mr. Smith goes before the Committee, false evidence is produced along with expert witnesses claiming that he owns the land and has introduced the Bill for his own profit. He has no defense against the lies, except that the people in his hometown know the truth. So he decides to filibuster long enough to get the word out through a local paper that the kids from his Boy’s Association operate.

The thugs from Washington send in their intimidators, the newspapers with the truth are confiscated, the young boys are beaten up, and the word never gets out. After hours of filibustering Mr. Smith is about to collapse when hundreds of letters arrive from his hometown. He opens one after another and they are all against him.  His body gives out as he drops to the floor.

The story has a happy ending because one of the corrupt Senators finally has a conscience and tells the truth.

While watching this movie I couldn’t help but think of the situation in Washington today and how there is no happy ending.

I see Mr. Smith as the Republican Party.  After 40 years of corruption and control by the Democrats, they finally win control of the House and the Senate. The newly elected Congressmen and Senators arrive in Washington with the idealism that Mr. Smith had along with his naivety and trust.   They begin attempting to make changes to the entrenched system.

The Democrats have their own corrupt President in power who is breaking the law and lying, but they accuse the Republican leaders of lying and cheating. The corrupt minority party has the entire media on their side and the people "back home" the base, turn against their own party and one by one their leaders drop. 

With only a slim majority a newly elected Republican President arrives in town full of idealism and hope.  He's considered a hick from Texas and is not a smooth talker.  Washington makes fun of him because he thinks he can get something done by establishing a "new tone" there.   

It doesn’t take long for the Democrats and the entire media to begin accusing him of lying and corruption. The very people that had defended the corruption of the Democrat President now accuse him of doing the exact same things.  He can't seem to get his message out and finally after the beating from the entire media the people "back home," upset that he can't get anything done, turn on him too. 

The result is that the corrupt party that had controlled Washington for forty years is returned to power by the voters.  Now they can continue to attack and impede Mr. Bush for the next two years and claim that "this man who came to Washington" has accomplished nothing.  I somehow don't think that one of them will develop a consciense.

The End.

Sandra Lea Wise

On Laura Ingraham's show today, she referenced Joseph Bottum's article in the Wall Street Journal's Editorial Page, "The Conservative Case Against Bush" in which he argues that social conservatism has suffered under President Bush.  He says:  "Bush’s heart is in the right place, but he can’t seem to do anything right."

Buttom argues: "By the end of the day the media mostly won and the Republicans mostly lost. Social conservatism is in little better shape now than it was when Bush was first elected. In many ways, it is much worse."

Mr. Bottum concludes: "Again and again, he has done the right thing in the wrong way, until at last his wrongness has overwhelmed his rightness."  

He then asks:  "How can conservatives continue to support this man in much of anything he tries to do?  Iraq is not America's failure and it's not conservatism's failure.  We are where we are because of George W. Bush's failure."

I would like to propose to Mr. Bottum that the reason the "media" won and Republicans mostly lost is that people like him have been telling the country for years that Bush is a failure.  

Mr. Bottum, Laura Ingraham and many others in the conservative media, in their desire to destroy President Bush, are destroying the Republican Party.  Their hearts are in the wrong place because they can't see anything right in our President.   

Sandra Lea Wise

Bottum’s thesis can be found at: http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature?id=110009778

Since the early 80's Brazil has been converting it’s automobiles to run on gasohol made from sugar cane. In Brazil today Bush signed a new ethanol agreement between the U.S. and Brazil, heralded by both leaders as a way to boost alternative fuels production and use across the Americas.

The Associated Press stated: "Earlier in the day, at a mega fuel depot for tanker trucks, Bush and Brazil’s President Silva, said increasing the use of alternative fuel will lead to more jobs, a cleaner environment and greater independence from the whims of the oil market."

"We see the bright and real potential for our citizens being able to use alternative sources of energy that will promote the common good," Bush said.

Once again Bush is doing something while everyone else talks about our dependence on Middle Eastern oil.

Sandra Lea Wise

 

 

It seems that some conservatives would be willing to look the other way when it comes to Giuliani’s position on social issues.  They would do so because he is strong on national defense and seems to be the most electable candidate.

The question arises.  Would conservatives turn on Giuliani after he became president, as they have done with President Bush, and make it impossible for him to govern effectively?

A couple of years prior to the 2000 elections, Bush was the front runner in the polls.  Seeing his success in Texas, the Republican Party begged him to enter the race.  He ran on issues such as "no child left behind," "prescription drug coverage for the elderly" and a "guest worker program."  Conservatives supported him, knowing his position on these issues, because he was a strong social conservative.

After the elections, when Bush began to implement his agenda, the conservative media started their attacks, with a brief interruption after 9/11.  They charged that he was a   big government liberal.  The result was that the base "pulled the rug out from under him" during the last elections.   

Would the conservative media support Giuliani to get him elected and then try to control him once he became President?  Would they begin attacking him immediately to get him to move to the right and continue the attacks whenever they disagreed with him? 

I could support Giuliani because I think he would be a strong candidate that would bring in the Reagan democrats and independents to beat Hillary or Obama.  However, if history were to repeat itself, could the Republican Party survive?

Sandra Lea Wise

The Earth has been around for thousands of years and now Al Gore along with his pals in Hollywood want us to believe that we have caused global warming in our few years of living on this planet.

The rich and famous are now claiming to live a "carbon neutral" life by "offsetting" their lavish lifestyles.  To check on the size of my "carbon footprint," I went to www.carbonfootprint.com and found that my use of CO2 per year is 3. I have no idea what this number means, but I could participate in the "Planting trees in Kenya Program" to offset this number.

I can imagine that the Creator must be saying to himself, "There they go again... now they think that they can control the climate!"

Along with their big feet these environmentalists apparently have pretty big heads!

Sandra Lea Wise