Conservative America @ MindSay 
Do you know who Richard Mellon Scaife is? Scaife has been the perennial anti-Clinton media mogul of the Conservative sort. Scaife is the founder of NewsMax and supporter of Conservative causes (notable website) and other media outlets like the American Spectator. He is a billionaire who has been extremely generous toward Conservative causes as George Soros is associated with the fringe Left.
Scaife has even been a supporter of Joseph Farah who is the founder of World Net Daily. The key words are “has been.”
So why the interest in Scaife and his Conservative credentials? World Net Daily reports that Scaife has become a Clinton supporter, an anti-war activist and seemingly rabid anti-Bush.
Now I realize the media outlets like NewsMax, American Spectator and World Net Daily aren’t exactly viewed as a media outlet that report accurately; nonetheless they are outlets that report an alternative to the heavily skewed Lefty Mainstream Media (MSM) who have had reputations of credible reporting and public believability. It is the view of credibility and believability that has made the MSM dangerous as a propaganda tool of the Slanted Left minded fringe of America.
What accounts for Scaife’s transformation? Worse, what might this mean for Conservative alternative news to compare to the MSM news?
His own party is yelling that he entered too late – never occurring to them that everyone else entered too early and Americans will have turned off, or tuned out, by the time the important stuff happens.
No question Thompson has more experience than any other candidate; he has, after all, played President three times in the movies – without question that is better than having a Bush or Reagan play it the first time in real life.
The Whitehouse is NOT the place for amateur actors, or B-actors, to test their metal and suitability for a roll. Talking of Bush and Reagan, both claimed to be Conservative, and between them they added over seventy percent of the current national debt.
Get real, this nation cannot afford another Conservative President from GOP central casting. Of course, even though he has the prior experience, Fred will not make it – he is still represented by that GOP Central Casting Office, and so, by definition, will never be star material.
We also have the age problem. The best, or most noted, performances seem to come with Democratic performers. Look at the Kennedy clan; be it as lead, or even in a supporting roll as antagonist with “baggage”, the Kennedy clan turns out remarkably press worthy leadership.
How about the Clinton group? The first entrant added requisite sexual material necessary to most modern American drama. That was topped off by the loving and supportive wife and daughter who stood by their man – great classic Hollywood topped off buy budgets which were balanced to the point of returning a surplus.
Now there is the definition of Conservative – family values, moral weakness , forgiveness, unconditional love, and redemption, with the added trait of fiscal competence and humanitarian endeavor.
OK, Carter had a lot of that two; but the script writers messed up on the fiscal. Though the post-story sequel presented a character who could swing a hammer with the labor class, and socialize with the blue bloods, while serving humanitarian objectives in the context of another loving, faith based family.
Where are the devoted, faith based, GOP? How many dump their wives for their mistress? How many dump the wife for the mistress, and dump the mistress for yet another wife? That is the morality play within the GOP. Is that really what America wants and needs?
Does America want, or need, philandering spendthrifts at this time in its history? Does it really want to crash and burn in a Godfather like role as it orchestrates St. Valentines Day massacres around the world?
Yep Fred Thompson has presented himself for the role, and he is facing off against Hillary Clinton. Both have Senate credentials – but of what relative value? What did Fred do for the common person, what has Hillary’s contribution been?
Which of these two has the strongest sense of budgetary balance? The one who denies domestic necessities in favor of murdering those in foreign lands, or the one who, somewhat gullibly, votes to act against those accused of, but not party to, attacks on her constituents?
It will be a difficult choice for the electorate. Do we go with those who, unlike the average household member, would cut budgets so as to squander money on wasteful items intended never to be used (ie, nuclear weapons); or with those who define what is needed and, finding that there is insufficient money, determine to go out and raise the necessary funds through expansion of their lawful abilities?
Hum. It will be such a hard choice. One which the American public has made, to its own detriment, several times in the bast twenty odd years. Will America really want to, once again, vote to kill and spend?
Stay tuned. The tryouts are in progress and the 2008 Opening is near.
Thomas Sowell elicits a terrific point. America is at war: Are you serious or frivolous about that war?
Sowell indicates the Main Stream Media (MSM) focuses on the frivolous rather than the serious issues that actually matter for America.
In these grim and foreboding times, our media have this year spent incredible amounts of time on a hunting accident involving Vice President Cheney, a bogus claim that the administration revealed Valerie Plame's identity as a C.I.A. "agent" -- actually a desk job in Virginia -- and is now going ballistic over a Congressman who sent raunchy e-mails to Congressional pages. (Sowell)
Does anyone see a pattern? The MSM is dedicated to any frivolous news that will de-rail the Conservative elements of the Republican Party and President Bush. The MSM is dedicated to placing the Democratic Party agenda on the express train to regain political dominance.
Even when serious issues are addressed, they can be addressed either seriously or frivolously. If you are content to see life and death issues of war and peace addressed with catch phrases like "chicken hawk" or to see a coalition of nations around the world fighting terrorism referred to as "unilateral" U.S. action because France does not go along, then you are content with frivolity. (Sowell)
Here is more evidence of slanted left MSM frivolity as opposed to reporting the reality of the hatred that emanates toward America. There are Mohammedans that hate America because our values have enriched this nation. Our values are diametrically opposed to Mohammedan values and Mohammedans struggle with poverty for their leaders are corrupt, despotic and manipulative utilizing the Mohammedan faith to remain in power.
There are Leftists in Western nations that hate America because our values have engendered prosperity without becoming a socialistic welfare state. Their mixed economy of socialism and capitalism have created the utopia of free medical care and huge unemployment benefits; however their economies have stifled growth and risk taking that thrives in capitalistic ventures.
Then there are old enemies that have pretended to be friends (Russia) and at least not hostile (China) who wish to carve their own hegemonic niches of global power.
These are areas the MSM has failed to be serious about merely for the reason to battle an ideology of Conservativism. The MSM view of a World Order is democratic, socialistic and secular humanistic. The Conservative World View is democratic, capitalistic (unfortunately with an emphasis with Corporate capitalistic hegemony) and secular yet religious.
It is interesting that the MSM jumped on the heinous acts of Foley with homosexually charged explicit emails. And they should have! However, the MSM did not make the same roar when not too many years past a Democratic Representatives either engaged in homosexual sex with Congressional Pages (Gerry Studds) or had homosexual boyfriends (Barney Frank) running homosexual escort services from their mutual apartment. The former was censured and did not resign. Indeed, Studds ran for Office and was actually re-elected. The Later is still in Office.
These are classic examples on MSM choices in who to vilify and who not to vilify.
Showing 1 - 5. [ Next ]
