When I’m out of the country, or out in the boondocks, I pay no attention to the news. That’s okay, because when I am finally re-connected to the media babble I find that nothing much has changed. The characters may be different, but the play is still essentially the same.
The wrangling amongst anonymous posters in comment threads continues, probably to have no great affect on the outcome of any issue with which they are concerned. The wordy repetition of heart-felt beliefs reminds me of the Shakespearean observation:
He draweth out the thread of his verbosity finer than the staple of his argument.
Latas supporters seem still to be immensely impressed by the Lieutenant Colonel’s position on Iraq, but I’m blessed if I can see any substantive difference from Giffords’ views.
From the Latas Web site:
* Reposition forces out of the cities, and eventually out of the country, at the earliest practicable date.
* Deploy a quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence in the region.
* Pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy
From the Giffords web site:
*Declare that we will have no permanent bases in Iraq.
*Commit to a targeted plan that brings our troops home as quickly as possible, while transitioning security responsibilities to the Iraqis.
*Encourage European and Middle Eastern countries to help financially in the rebuilding efforts.
On the basis of the Latas position on Iraq alone I see no reason to support him rather than Giffords. Incidentally, detailed statements of the Giffords positions, voting record, and testimonials are available here.