Has anyone noticed how ubiquitous Newt Gingrich has been lately?  TV, newspapers, radio, online -- he has been everywhere, often.  I think it is a forgone conclusion he is positioning himself for a presidential run in 2008, and I am not sure what to think about it.  The source of my unease is the impression I have that he is the Republican version of Hillary -- An polarizing, partisan figure who is attempting to moderate his stance in order to gain a foothold with the "swing" voters that presumably decide elections.  I thought I knew who this man was, yet now I am not so sure.  Is he still devoted to his conservative views and simply being pragmatic about what it takes to win an election, or is his ideology shifting?  Would he govern from the right and push a conservative agenda were he to be elected?  I would think he is smart enough to know he would have a better chance of being nominated if he were to position himself to the right of the liberal Republicans.  If so, why then is he talking like a moderate?  If he is trying to be a centerist, what then makes him different from McCain or Giuliani, both of whom are too feckless and liberal for my tastes?  I guess this is what really bothers me about politicians.  They seem to be too busy trying to "position" themselves for what they think the public wants, one rarely gets a sense of what the real person is like.  Small wonder terms like out-of-touch and untrustworthy are applied to politicians.  In my opinion, just tell me what you really think, just as President Bush did today with his potty-mouth moment.  Then you have a better chance of gaining my respect and, quite possibly, my vote.

The liberal world community is showing its colors again, condemning Israel for its "disproportionate" response to the most recent provocations from Hezbollah terrorists.  Here is a country that has been making concessions and withdrawing from land claimed by Arabs in the hopes of stabilizing the situation and laying the foundation for a workable peace, and what do the Islamo-facists do?  They provoke and attack, kill and kidnap soldiers, and then cry foul when Israel responds with moderate force.  They make a calculated effort to attack Israel, backed by Iran and Syria, on a second front while it is engaged against Hamas in Gaza.  Where is the outrage for the unprovoked attacks on Israel's sovereign soil, by terrorist organizations which are part of the "legitimate" governments of Lebanon and the Palestinian Authority?  Rather, the outrage comes from supposed Israeli "allies," claiming Israel should be more measured in its response and stand down from the attack.  Let me ask France, what would happen if a neighboring country undertook an unprovoked military incursion into your sovereign territory attacking military targets and kidnapping French soldiers?  What would you do?  Would you lay down your arms and fail to respond in kind?  Well....bad example.  Most countries would be outraged if this happened to them and a majority of the world would back them up.  It boggles my mind to hear the U.N. Security Council voted 10-1 to condemn ISRAEL!!!   What about condemning HAMAS and HEZBOLLAH???  I understand the need to get beyond supporting every Israeli action without discretion.  Any form of unprovoked aggression by both sides should be discouraged and condemned.  But when a country is attacked, the world "community" ought to unite against the aggressor rather than the victim.  A country has a right to act against aggressors threatening its security, as we acted against Afghanistan and Iraq, and should do so with overwhelming force.  Arguably, that has been our biggest mistake in Iraq -- the persistent fear to use overwhelming force from day one.  Let's hope Israel does not give in to world pressure and make the same mistake in Lebanon and Gaza. 

In this day and age of overcrowded media spaces, I attempt to make my voice heard.  Will anyone listen?  I hope so.  Why?  I am not sure.  I suppose each of us feels ours is the voice of reason and those on either side of us are irrational, raving madmen.  As one who stands to the left or right of someone else, I will embrace that role, recognize my differences, and rave away in the hopes that someone will see that I may not be so mad at all, maybe even find a bit of rationality and practicality in what I have to say.  Then again, maybe this will end up being a simple catharsis, a means to put into words the multitude of frustrating rants rattling around my unsophisticated mind which increase exponentially as I witness the sheer stupidity of our politicians conducting their daily practice of looking out for themselves and their own agendas to the detriment of the American public.  A raving madman, or a voice of reason?  You decide...