You already may have heard but, in case you haven't, here's a recap. Doug Wead a "friend of the Bush family" secretly taped conversations with the future President, George W. Bush. Mr. Wead turned over copies of the tapes to a New York Times reporter. Most of the MSM's indignation is focused on conversations where the future president discussed how he would handle questions about his previous drug use and proposed answers to questions about his stance on homosexuality.

I'd like to make two points. First, Mr. Wead has shown that he is a traitor. Not to the Republican Party, not to some conservative ideology, but to a friend. No doubt, Mr. Wead was considered to be a friend of then-Governor Bush. Otherwise, would he have discussed strategy with Mr. Wead? Now, when you have potentially hot issues in your background (like the president's previous drug and alcohol use), isn't it worthwhile to discuss how to handle situations where such information becomes public? This type of discussion should be expected of a politician who intends to run for another office. The primary point here is the complete lack of fidelity to one's friends. And in closing this point I will quote some Shakespeare (Henry V: Act II, Scene 2):
Second, the MSM and Democrat Party will try anything to besmirch the name of George W. Bush -- including trying to bring up previously confessed sins. At this point in time, President Bush has already acknowledged his checkered past. He has acknowledged his drug use and his alcohol abuse. Some will say that allegations of marijuana use are new. But would you expect someone who has been a cocaine user to have passed over marijuana? There is nothing new here. So why is this even an issue? It is an issue because Liberals cannot stomach being out of power. This episode points out that the Democrat Party, and its fringe elements (now being welcomed as the orthodoxy), don't know what to do with themselves when they don't have control over the political process. Instead of developing the party's core identity and what issues will matter within the party, they are focusing on issues that will further alienate the American public. Beyond this, these actions will further drive the more radical followers of the new Democrat orthodoxy to greater separation from the American mainstream. When you have someone attending a debate between Howard Dean and Richard Perle who throws his shoe at Mr. Perle and shouts slanders and curses. Mr Wead's actions, and the actions of the MSM, only stoke the fires of hatred in these radical elements of the American public.

Another (third) point I've just considered is the unfortunate reflection Mr. Wead's actions will bring on Christians and Christianity. Mr. Wead has been called upon in the past to discuss President Bush's Christian beliefs and convictions. Mr. Wead even characterizes himself as a Christian. If so, then why is he turning on a friend? Why is he casting aspersions on the Presidents character and tainting his Christian witness without reason? It is often said that the worst maligners of Christianity are "Christians." I put "Christians" in quotes because, though they claim the name of Christian, they are not acting in accord with Christian principles. This kind of activity (Mr. Wead), leaves me with a sense of sadness about the damage done to our Christian witness.