Galileo Vs. The Democrats

I was doing some thinking last night regarding the tendency among Democrats to question the timing and motivation of every action the President takes. If Tom Ridge warns us of a heightened threat from terrorists, they question the timing of it. If we have success in Iraq or Afghanistan, if he makes progess on any front, domestic or foreign, if he so much as signs or vetoes a bill that crosses his desk, they question the timing and motivation of his action. Everything the President does must be nothing more than a Karl Rove-prompted machination intended solely to discredit the Democrats and their candidate. It's a bit of political solipsism that wearies me greatly.

I feel like Galileo, trying to tell the Pope that the Sun does not revolve around the Earth. Not everything is about you, Dems. I know, it's hard to accept, but you are not the center of the universe, and not every decision that is made is made in light of how it will affect you politically.

I'm no idiot. I acknowledge that the President, as a candidate, does calculate how his actions will affect his re-election chances. What he does, what he says, and how he does and says them, will have a great effect on November 2nd. But he is also aware of the fact that they have an immediate effect AND a long-term effect on the country, regardless of who wins the election. that's the burden of being POTUS. So while he may temper his decisions with political considerations, in the end, I truly believe he does what he believes is best for the country. The United States of America is our political Sun, folks, the parties and politicians are merely planets.

I can't help believing that the Democrats are projecting. After all, most (if not all) of what their candidate says is calculated specifically to discredit the President, and to make himself look good. There's been a lot of pretty talk, but little substance to his discussion of the issues. And he's been willing to change horses midstream just to present an opposing view to the President's (case in point: the redistribution of troops issue). But I suppose that for him, any means is acceptable to achieve the ends of defeating Bush and being President.

But the Presidency isn't an ends, it's a means. It's the means to the ends of serving the Republic and defending the Constitution.

Kerry does know that, right?

Right?