Coincidence? I think not.

Here's a quote from a recent Michael Novak article:

Most of the bloggers seem to me to be lawyers, to think clearly, and to have a very sharp eye for conflicting evidence. Most of the mainstream press, perhaps because of their editors, seem hemmed in by blinkers. It frequently startles me to discover how far behind the story they really are. The mystique of the mainstream press has self-destructed.

Find the full text article here.

The rest of the article deals with the Vietnam aspect to this election. Why wasn't this important in 1992 and 1996? As much as the 9/11 Commission whitewashed the Clinton administration's policies and actions, it's obvious that the planning and implementation took place during that administration. Wouldn't a veteran (Dole?) have been more in tune with this impending crisis? It seems that's what the Democrats of this millennium want us to believe. The hypocrisy of the Democratic party would be laughable if this weren't a serious issue. I can't fathom how the media gave such a pass to Clinton, yet wants to split hairs regarding the qualifications of "war presidents" during this election. At the very least, W served in a military capacity (much the same capacity as many of the troops currently in Iraq).
Even with Kerry's dubious heroics during his four months in Vietnam, I don't doubt the fact that he served and it doesn't lessen the respect I have for him as a veteran. (I am having a hard time reconciling the purpose of the home footage he took, and the apparently distorted facts behind his commendations. Why won't he release those records?). But since the day he returned home, his life speaks volumes. Not the kind of volumes that demonstrate his abbreviated tour of duty transformed him into a preeminent world leader, prepared to handle the domestic and foreign agenda of the United States of America. Why is this issue the centerpiece of his campaign?