I'm back early from Coffee with the Candidates. I actually got to speak to Karl Epperson, and I was impressed with his viewpoint. The others were huddled with high society types, so I picked up literature and left. While there, I did get to see an old friend, so here's the shout out to M.M. (or M.V., however you prefer it!)

I was just reading yesterday's "Nuze", where Boortz said,

Why is George Bush having to spend so much time defending a speech promoting freedom? It's amazing. Freedom is so unpopular around the world that you can't even stand up and deliver a speech extolling it's values and virtues without taking criticism from all corners. Such is the popularity of government-provided security. I ranted enough about this last Friday ... you can go to the archives for more. But, as I said, I just can't let it go. I grew up being told and actually believing that people love freedom. The biggest disappointment of my adult life may be the realization that this whole "love of freedom" thing is a complete lie. For the most part people seem to love freedom right up until that point where the old responsibility thing kicks in.

The thing is, of course, that Bush's freedom speech is taking hits not because we do not love freedom, but because we do cherish freedom, and his hypocritical rhetoric is a disservice to the cause of freedom. A look at some of the criticism shows what I mean. From Preposterous Universe:

If it weren't, you know, important. So, the Second Inaugural Address was the "freedom speech," in which the President harped on the theme of spreading freedom throughout the world. (Some transcripts, in the hands of trained readers, came out differently.) Much tough talk about democracy being good, tyranny being bad, stuff like that.

Of course, the educated blog-reading public understands that it's all hypocritical nonsense. The President is supposed to say things like that; what's he going to say, that our support for repressive dictatorships will be strictly limited to those cases when it seems to serve our immediate interests? But apparently some nervous folks in faraway lands actually thought he might be serious about cracking down on tyranny. Hysterical, no? So an aide was trotted out (anonymously, of course -- this isn't a gig you want on your resume) to explain to the innocent foreigners that the speech didn't actually represent a policy of the United States -- at least, not in the sense that the actual words in the speech were to be taken at face value. It was just business as usual, a little pep talk for the brave 51% that gave our President his mandate. Next thing you know, someone will actually think that tax cuts are the best way to eliminate the budget deficit.

Funnily enough, the same Neal Boortz who carries wood for freedom in the first paragraph continues on to suggest a plan for disenfranchising "welfare recipients" in the second paragraph

Boortz continues by telling bald-faced lies about climate change. He states, "The problem, of course, with the anti-capitalist climate change jihadists is that they lack any real scientific proof for their views." Why he would want to mislead you on this subject is beyond me. Neal, it's time for you to take a reality check. And while you're at it, spend some time at realclimate.org, where they discuss in some detail the evidence that supposedly doesn't exist. Don't miss today's post.

Neal is right about one thing. Zarqawi and other terrorists do hate democracy. And as Democratic nations continue to export anger and fear instead of hope and optimism, we can expect more Islamic people to join them in that hatred.

Final note, to Web Wench, if you're reading... the permalinks seem to be broken. Rather than 200501/01242005.html#label which points to the correct file, they are constructed this way: 200512/01242005.html#label, which leads to a file not found page.