Will GWB regret having lost Howard as a supporter?

Not sure, but, it can't be good for him.

Can we please just remember what is important? Remember that the picture above is of something that no longer exists, except in our memories? Remember that all that truly matters is protecting ourselves from those that want to outright wipe us off the face of the Earth? If we are all dead, does it matter if someone got their way on a social issue? How about making sure we get it our way on THE issue?

I am really nervous about this. He may gain some votes by this, but, I think the amount he may lose over this is far more than what is gained. He could lose ones that would have voted for him, and "gain" phantom ones that would have voted for him anyway. (even if they threatened to stay home). I am not saying GWB is actually supporting this and actively spending time hoping it happens. Actually, on that matter, I doubt he is. But, he certainly could stop it.

As Michael Harrison says in the article at the end: (which I, for the most part, agree with)

"George W. Bush should lie awake at night having lost Howard Stern's support and having Stern as a political enemy. Stern's clout, his influence over adults who vote, professionals, 30-something and 40-something professionals, is enormous."

I really hope this battle is not one that gets fought prior to November. Social issues are worthy of discussion, and in a different time (prior to 9/11/01), it is fine to 'go to the mat' about them when you feel strongly about something. But, not now. Now is the time to worry about something far more important, far more deadly, than any of the 'hot-button' issues. That includes, gay marriage, indecency on the airwaves, or even the damn budget deficit. I don't give a rat's ass about Martha Stewart, Enron, steroids in sports, Janet's boob, super-sized fries, how accurate Mel's the Passion is, or even whether Scott Peterson really killed Laci and Conner. At least not until I know we are going to stay the course on this War on Terror. All other issues are tied for second.

While I certainly lean toward the GOP on many/most issues, fighting terror is the trump card. If the Democrats were to put up someone who was going to be STRONGER (truly stonger) on terror, I would vote for them. As an example, no way would I consider voting for anyone other than Tony Blair if I was in the UK. I loved Margaret Thatcher, but, no one in the Tory party has shown any backbone on the terror issue. Sorry, end of discussion, Tony Blair needs to stay in charge there. I have gone completely 180 on my feelings for that man. He 'gets it' and knows when to put politics aside and do what is necessary. What will be written about in the history books 100 years from now as a turning point. Is taking Howard Stern off the air going to be cared about in 100 years? Of course not, so, why even be associated with it?

In a Machiavellian way, I could see hoping to get rid of Stern behind the scenes if he was spouting us rolling over on the War on Terror and getting the US approval and overall acting like, well, France. But, he is NOT. He rails against the threats our country has in front of us. He is a HUGE advocate of being tough on those that want to harm us. He supported Bush big time even though he would NOT be in favor of most of the social policies Bush might like. Howard knew saving our Country is more important and comes first.

Please, realize how dangerous allowing Bush to lose this election over something as trivial as these kinds of issues. This thing will serve only to play into the hands of those that spout about the dangers of the Patriot Act, the loss of privacy, the police state that we are becoming, etc. There just isn't anything good about it.

Could Colin Powell actually be wanting George Bush to lose, so, he can run against Hillary in 2008? So he is asking his son Michael to do the dirty work? OK, that's it, I need to stop. I am watching too much TV. Where is Jack Bauer when you need him?