Recently the following newsworthy items were reported but not nearly with the roar of predictions of that the Republicans will fail to maintain control over Congress following the Mark Foley scandal or the pathetic reemergence of the runaway bride Jennifer Willibanks.
Item 1
The US Army met and exceeded recruitment goals, enrolling 80,000 enlistees. The media only mentions this before and after reminding the reader of how the US Army has lowered standards and raising the maximum age from 36 to 42. While these points on standards are fact, the common punch line is to cite this miraculous achievement despite an unpopular war in the background. When has a war ever been popular? Even during World War II there was the common cry to ‘bring our boys home’. When has the entire US population stood as one and agreed on a war? Never. Yet the Iraq war is described as being ‘unpopular’ while World War II was different? Who decides this war is unpopular? Do the ‘brave’ members of the mainstream media machine make such judgments? Maybe the editorial page of The New York Times acts as the final decision maker? These are the same types that often cry ‘support your troops’ while they degrade their leader. True, they may not voice this full comment but they certainly imply both sides of the coin. And if this hypocrisy disguised as troop support is their cry, which only achieves pecking away at morale, what does the implication of lowering standards mean? Are they saying that only a moron with a few teeth in their mouth would be dumb enough to enlist?
Item 2
There was little mention, at least not blasted as with the Natalee Holloway case, that the US deficit was the smallest in four years. The budget deficit shrank to $247.7 billion. President Bush cites tax relief in assisting with economic stimulus. It is true that often time’s tax relief allows industry to grow, thus creating greater revenue and that would assume greater tax payments.
Democrats were quick to cry sour grapes. According to Democrats, Bush initially projected a deficit reduction of about $350 billion. The left, which typically support the Democrats, are quick to refer to Bush as an idiot. How could they expect this President to be able to project a deficit reduction? Senate Budget Committee member Democrat Senator from North Dakota Kent Conrad was quick with the following, “Cutting the deficit in half from an intentionally inflated high point is a misleading goal and certainly no measure of success”.
New York Democrat Representative Carolyn B. Maloney, a member of the Joint Economic Committee, had this to say, "Only a president with such a historically bad economic record would be this excited about a $248-billion deficit," and followed up with "The large budget deficits run up by President Bush have produced record-low national saving, record-high trade deficits and record-high foreign borrowing."
Bush is not to blame for the trade deficit. The Democrats must think he can single-handily change the consumer’s choice when it comes to buying things from Asia. The issue of foreign ownership is nothing new although with the left this talking point is often thrown in the mix with the regular critique of President Bush’s administration. And the last time your author checked the economy continues to produce stable growth.
Another note to this news, which was eclipse by the recent on-goings of that ‘important’ figure Anna Nicole Smith, was that spending on that dismal institution known as public education increased by 28% and Medicare spending grew by 12.5%. These are two important issues to Democrats. Where is their rosy cheer?
Whether or not the reader agrees with the author’s opinion or analysis with regard to these two items, one cannot deny that the mainstream media machine that scrambles in between such programming as ‘Dancing with the Stars’ and ‘Desperate Housewives’ is not presenting the entire picture. As the great Paul Harvey says ‘now you know the rest of the story’.
