Obama Fortuna

Haven't posted in a while, but here goes:

Coulter Cash is Money Well Spent

The primping, preening, beauty queen otherwise known as John "da Fonz" Edwards has been putting your hard earned political contributions, aka "Coulter Cash", to good use:

Edwards' haircuts cost a pretty penny
Associated Press
WASHINGTON - Looking pretty is costing John Edwards' presidential campaign a lot of pennies. The Democrat's campaign committee picked up the tab for two haircuts at $400 each by celebrity stylist Joseph Torrenueva of Beverly Hills, Calif., according to a financial report filed with the Federal Election Commission.

FEC records show Edwards also availed himself of $250 in services from a trendy salon and spa in Dubuque, Iowa, and $225 in services from the Pink Sapphire in Manchester, N.H., which is described on its Web site as "a unique boutique for the mind, body and face" that caters mostly to women.

It is money well spent... he is soooo pretty



So pretty...

Democrats, please.... please keep giving this man your hard earned money. He wants to run for President; but more importantly, he wants to look good doing it.

UPDATE:
Awwww, the Coulter Cash is no longer helping make John pretty.
Edwards reimbursing his campaign $800 for haircut

Interesting Hillary Pic: The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy at Work

Believe it or not, this pic is real:


Looks like she is flicking us off, right? (h/t)



Amazingly, the "Related" news story listed by Yahoo is "Clinton: Right-wing conspiracy is back"

Is this irony or just an amazing coincidence?

In the related story we learn that on Tuesday (March 13, 2007) Hillary said, "To the New Hampshire Democratic Party's credit, they sued and the trail led all the way to the Republican National Committee. So if anybody tells you there is no vast, right-wing conspiracy, tell them that New Hampshire has proven it in court"

Hillary was alluding to an incident where some Republicans in New Hampshire, in what was clearly a dirty trick, jammed phones to disturb a Democratic "get out the vote" effort.

I suppose using Hillary's logic (woops... now there is an oxymoron if ever I saw one) that when Acorn (an extremely liberal, 100% democrat supporting group) paid an Ohio man in "crack cocaine in exchange for fraudulent registrations that included underage voters, dead voters and pillars of the community named Mary Poppins, Dick Tracy and Jive Turkey" that this must, by analogy, be proof of a "vast left wing conspiracy."(Source.) Why would a Democrat front group go out and register dead people as Democrats?

Or when Democrats pay homeless people with cigarettes to vote Democrat. Would this help evidence a vast left wing conspiracy?

Why is there only ever talk of a vast right wing conspiracy?

Maybe it is because only moonbats subscribe to vast conspiracies of any sort.

Obama Facing Questions Re: Investments

Obama faces questions on his blind trust
By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record) said Wednesday he was not aware he had invested in two companies backed by some of his top donors and said he had done nothing to aid their business with the government.

The Illinois senator faced questions about more than $50,000 in investments he made right after taking office in 2005 in two speculative companies, AVI Biopharma and Skyterra Communications. Obama said his broker bought the stocks as part of a quasi-blind trust in which he was not consulted when trades were made.

...

Obama purchased $5,000 in shares for AVI, which was developing a drug to treat avian flu. Two weeks after buying the stock, as the disease was spreading in Asia, Obama pushed for more federal funding to fight the disease, but he said he did not discuss the matter with any company officials.

I am noticing a trend of stories by Nedra Pickler on Barack Obama. The last one I blogged about was Obama's Ancestors: Slave Owners?

A Perfect Contradiction: I'm Officially Backing Rudy

I have made a decision with regard to the Republican candidate I am going to back throughout the primaries.

I have decided to back the highly electable, yet decidedly imperfect, Rudy Giuliani.

This was a tough decision. Ideally the Republicans could have a candidate who holds every single conservative platform, is a strong, effective, well spoken candidate, and who is universally loved. Since no candidate seems to fit that bill, I have decided to pick the candidate who I trust most on my number one issue (the war on terror).

Rudy has a stellar record to fall back on. Aside from his leadership after the attacks of 9/11, during his tenure as Mayor of NYC, he cut crime rates in half, cleaned up a dirty, dirty city, implemented policies which reduced dependence on welfare, cut taxes, turned a multi-billion dollar deficit into a multi-billion dollar surplus, and he accomplished all of this in a city where Democrats outnumbered Republicans 5 to 1.

There is no candidate that polls better than him in a head to head race. He is the Republican's best shot of retaining the White House in 08, and the best hope for continuing the war against Islamo-fascism (the war on terror).

The only other Republican candidate I really like is Newt Gingrich, but I'm not sure he can win. Right now he is polling in the single digits, nationally, and in head to head match ups with Democrats he doesn't look particularly strong. I think Newt would be a fine President, and if he gets the nomination I will certainly back him, but for now I am backing Rudy all the way to the White House.

Slash Burn, When Will They Learn?

vs

'Slash and burn' row as Clinton, Obama trade shots
Stephen Collinson

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The 2008 Democratic presidential race took a sharp, nasty turn with Hillary Clinton's camp ripping into rising star rival Barack Obama as he savored a million-dollar Hollywood debut.

...

The flap erupted hours after director Steven Spielberg and stars such as Jennifer Aniston and Eddie Murphy reportedly helped Tinseltown glitterati raise more than 1.3 million dollars for Obama's White House bid.

With tensions rising 11 months before the first party nominating contests, the row centered on a New York Times column Wednesday, in which Geffen was quoted as branding Senator Clinton overly ambitious and "polarizing."

...

"By refusing to disavow the personal attacks from his biggest fundraiser against Senator Clinton and President Clinton, Senator Obama has called into serious question whether he really believes his own rhetoric," Hillary Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson said in a statement.

"How can Senator Obama denounce the politics of slash and burn yesterday while his own campaign is espousing the politics of trash today?" Wolfson said.

Clinton herself, at a Democratic Party candidates forum in the western state of Nevada, sought the political high ground.

"I want to run a very positive campaign, I sure don't want Democrats or supporters of Democrats to be engaging in the politics of personal destruction," she said when asked about the controversy.

...

"It is ironic that the Clintons had no problem with David Geffen when he was raising them 18 million dollars and sleeping at their invitation in the Lincoln bedroom."

...

Geffen was quoted by Times columnist Maureen Dowd as doubting Clinton's capacity to bring Americans together.

"I don't think that another incredibly polarizing figure, no matter how smart she is, and no matter how ambitious she is -- and God knows, is there anybody more ambitious than Hillary Clinton? -- can bring the country together."

And in another shot at the former first couple, Geffen told the Times: "Everybody in politics lies, but they do it with such ease, it's troubling."

"I don't think anybody believes that in the last six years, all of a sudden Bill Clinton has become a different person," Geffen was quoted as saying of the former president impeached over an affair with a White House intern.
Read the Full Article

Meanwhile, conservatives sit back, pop-corn in hand, and watch as the liberals tear each other apart.

Related:

Analysis: Early bumps trip Clinton camp

NEW YORK - A Hollywood-style brawl with the campaign of rival Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record) is the latest in a series of speed bumps tripping up Hillary Rodham Clinton's early presidential moves.

From the Clinton team's decision to criticize — and therefore publicize — producer David Geffen's complaints about both Clintons to increasingly skeptical questions about Sen. Clinton's nuanced explanation of her 2002 vote authorizing the Iraq war, it became apparent even a battle-tested front-runner can fall prey to missteps.
Read More.

Edwards Urges "Smarter" Approach

Edwards urges direct talks with Iran
TODD DVORAK, Associated Press Writer

DUBUQUE, Iowa - Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards criticized the Bush administration on Sunday for failing to engage directly with Iran to resolve problems with the Iraq war and Iran's effort to develop nuclear weapons.

"It's a huge strategic mistake not to be dealing directly with Iran," Edwards told the Associated Press in an interview before a campaign event in Dubuque.

"What we should be doing with Iran, both on the Iraq issue and the nuclear issue, is being much smarter than we're being now. We have tools available to us to engage them."

You see... international diplomacy can be tricky. When dealing with an islamo-fascist state like Iran (a country hell bent on acquiring nuclear weapons with which to wipe Isreal and the United States off the map), sanctions and the threat of military invasion are basically ineffectual. You need a smarter, more nuanced appraoch. To defeat Iran you need to use "tools" - like Edwards - and "talk" at them.

Simple, see. All you need to do is talk at them and they will crumble before us. Sheesh, why didn't Bush think of that! Edwards is a shoo-in in '08.

Is it just me or is Edwards "smarter" plan of "talking to Iran" an aweful lot like Kerry's "smarter" plan.

Obama: A Black Man Can Be President, Ford: Yeah But Not You

Obama: U.S. ready for black president
AP - White House hopeful Barack Obama, taking a fellow black lawmaker to task, said Saturday voters are ready to elect a black president.
..

Obama responded to comments this past week by Democratic state Sen. Robert Ford of Charleston, who helped mobilize black voters for former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards in 2004, but has switched to Hillary Rodham Clinton in the 2008 presidential race.

Ford said Tuesday that Obama, a first-term senator, has much to prove. "The media made this guy bigger than life," Ford said. "This guy isn't tested and they made him a rock star."

Ford said one reason he was supporting Clinton, the New York senator, is that he is skeptical Obama can win the presidency and worries his nomination could hurt other Democratic candidates.

"Every Democrat running on that ticket next year would lose — because he's black and he's top of the ticket. We'd lose the House and the Senate and the governors and everything," Ford said.

Looks like I am in agreement with two Democrats. Obama is right: a black man can be President in America. And Ford is right: if Obama is on top of the ticket, Democrats will lose it all in '08. I pontificate why Obama cannot winhere in great detail.

Bingo! Goldberg Gets it Right

This article sums up everything I feel about the 2008 elections (for the Republicans) - SO FAR.

If the election were held today the Republicans have three legitimate* candidates:
1) Rudy Giuliani
2) John McCain
3) Mitt Romney

*I say legitimate because they have a legitimate chance of winning, not because they are the three best candidates.

I will immediately disqualify McCain because
1) He is a narcissistic RINO
2) I don't know a single conservative that would actually vote for him
3) He is old. Very, very, very old. I'm not sure he will live 4 years as President let alone 8 (let me be clear, this is not a threat). He has had cancer, he is elderly. I don't think he is a good pick at all.

So with McCain out, we have Giuliani or Romney... 2 peas in a pod. They aren't exactly RINO's, like McCain, but they are NOT particularly conservative candidates. Not a Bush, and certainly not a Regan.

When you look at Giuliani and Romney, in many ways they are the same candidate, as Goldberg points out when analyzing the abortion issue. (Romney claims to have seen the light on abortion, but that is BECAUSE he is running for the conservative vote).

Over the last 20 years, the largely accurate conventional wisdom has been that the GOP could not nominate a pro-choice politician, just as the Democratic party could never nominate a pro-life one. Some Republicans, including Ronald Reagan and the elder George Bush, had to move from a middle-of-the-road position on abortion to the right-hand guardrail, while some Democrats who once leaned to the pro-life side of the road had to make a similar move in the other direction.

That's being put to the test this time around.

...

Of course, Giuliani's national profile expanded enormously because of 9/11. And while the press harps on that point, the more interesting part of the story lies elsewhere. The war on terror hasn't just changed Giuliani's profile as a crisis-leader, it's changed the attitudes of many Americans, particularly conservatives, about the central crisis facing the country. It's not that pro-lifers are less pro-life or that social conservatives are suddenly OK with homosexuality, gun control and other issues where Giuliani's dissent from mainstream conservative opinion would normally disqualify him. It's that they really, really believe the war on terror is for real. At conservative conferences, on blogs and on talk radio, pro-life issues have faded in their passion and intensity compared with the war on terror. Taken together, terrorism, Iraq and Islam have become the No. 1 social issue for conservative base of the party.

Note: I didn't say it's become the No. 1 foreign-policy or national-security issue for social conservatives. It's become the No. 1 social issue, at least for many of them.
More.

Bingo! Give the man a prize.

I believe we can work out the abortion issue over time. I don't think we should drop the issue altogether, but we can deal with it in the future. We can't deal with the War on Terror in the future. It is a problem that confronts us RIGHT NOW. We can win the War on Terror and deal with abortion in time OR we can be wiped out by the terrorists, or maybe just buy some time till the next 9/11.

I would rather we put a President in place who will WIN the war on terror, not retreat into the failed policy of containment.

A point that Goldberg doesn't make which I think is very important is that Guiliani can win the national election. With Romney, who knows, but Guiliani is practically a lock. He has Bush's likability post 9/11 with no culpability for Iraq War fallout hanging over him. He was Time's Man of the Year, for crying out loud.

One thing he has to do, though, is commit to running and not appear indecisive on whether he wants to run. The press has been portraying him as hemming and hawing over the issue. That is bad for him. Leaders need to be strong and decisive.

I really don't know enough about Romney to have a strong feeling for or against him. I do like Giuliani, though, despite my differences with him on secondary issues like abortion. Regarding the gun issue, though, I think we are in agreement: His job is to enforce the laws. IF a gun law is against the second Amendment, the High Court will say so. It is the President's job to enforce laws, it is for the courts to interpret them. He enforced the law as a Mayor, took thousands of ILLEGAL weapons away from CRIMINALS. He didn't break into law abiding citizens homes and take their guns away, and he didn't create executive orders making guns illegal. He just enforced the law.

Money, Not Race, A Factor in NC politics

For some reason, the AP has been running this as two seperate stories. I can't quite figure out why, probably because the Obama story came first, but this is really one news story:

Race doesn't give Obama edge in S.C.
JIM DAVENPORT, Associated Press Writer

COLUMBIA, S.C. - Barack Obama may find that for black voters in South Carolina, being black isn't everything. If there is a single state where being black holds the potential to boost Obama's chances to win the Democratic presidential nomination, South Carolina fits the bill.

Yet, Democratic voters and party officials here said the Illinois senator will have to do as much persuading as any other candidate to win the support of blacks, who make up about half the Palmetto State's Democratic voters

Obama is gonna have to work for that black vote... or maybe he should take one out of Clinton's book and just buy off the black politicans:

Clinton offers contract to S.C. endorser
SUSANNE M. SCHAFER, Associated Press Writer

COLUMBIA, S.C. - A key black Democratic leader in South Carolina has negotiated a $10,000 per month consulting contract with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign, a development that came to light when the lawmaker endorsed the presidential hopeful.

The contract with state Sen. Darrell Jackson's firm, Sunrise Enterprises, is not yet signed but will run through the first Southern primary here next January, Clinton spokesman Mo Elleithee confirmed Thursday.

Elleithee denied there was any deal made for Jackson's endorsement.

Riiiiiight. That $10,000 per month "consulting fee" was just a bonus, not quid pro quo.

Half-Hour News Hour Clip

I am looking forward to this show.

Thoughts on '08: Republicans: Rudy Giuliani

I think the 2008 Presidential Elections will be the most vicious, divisive, ridiculous election yet. This year the Democrats will probably pick another loser: Shrillary won't win, Obama won't win, Biden won't win, Kucinich won't win, Edwards won't win, Gore won't win... it's slim pickens for the Democrats, and unless they can pull a Lieberman out of their hoohoo's - that is a Democrat who has broad appeal on both sides of the aisle, and who can be trusted with foreign policy and waging the war on Terror - the Democrats are going to have another disappointing national election.

If the Democrats can't pick a winner, then the election becomes the Republicans' to lose; but conservative America cannot get too excited. There were lessons to be learned in '06. Complacency will not win the election. Winning this election is going to take a lot of hard work, and a true conservative candidate who can motivate our base. The Republicans lost '06 because the Republican candidates had lost their way. They weren't conservative fiscally, and they lacked the moral conviction to do the right thing. Most of the Republicans who did lose lost to Democratic candidates who ran on a more conservative platform than the incumbent Republicans.

For the Republicans to win, they will need a charismatic, intelligent, well spoken candidate who truly represents the ideals of conservatism and is a patriot through and though. Whether Rudy Giuliani fits that bill is a VERY good question.

Rudy Giuliani is a political heavyweight. He has broad appeal, name recognition, and most Americans have a favorable opinion of him; however, running for the President of the United States is a bit more than a popularity contest.

Like most Americans, I could confess ignorance with regards to Giuliani's political and social views. Most people know that Rudy Giuliani is the former mayor of the largest city in America, New York. Most Americans understand that Giuliani is credited with turning NY City around.
One could argue that Giuliani was changed by 9/11 in much the same way that George W. Bush was changed by 9/11. Most Americans would probably recognize Giuliani as one of the prominent leaders who brought America through the worst terrorist attacks in the history of our country. Giuliani's tireless efforts and "steadfastness in the midst of chaos" made Giuliani a fitting pick for Time Magazine's 2002 Person of the Year.



So this is how I knew Giuliani. Six months ago in conversations with friends I said that Giuliani might be the right was to go in 08. This wasn't based on an informed look at the man, this was based on my knowledge that he turned NY city around, was known as one of the best mayors in the country for his work in NY, did a remarkable job after the 9/11 attacks, and that Giuliani, as a Republican candidate, would likely carry nearly all of Bush's red states but could also pick up a state like NY, which could ensure a landslide victory. There are few, if any, Democrats that will poll as well as Giuliani in a head to head race.

The response to this was usually, "but isn't Giuliani really liberal?"

Liberal as opposed to a George W. Bush or a Newt Gingrich, yes.

"So why," they would ask, "would you support Giuliani?"

My response was always the same, "Whereas I am not totally sure I would agree with Giuliani on all of his social issues, I am sure I can trust him with the War on Terror."

Like it or not, Iraq is part of the War on Terror. There is NO excuse for ripping defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq. We ARE winning the war on Terror. I believe Giuliani would agree and would not let me down on this issue.

But I don't believe you should vote for a candidate on the basis of one issue, alone, in a vacuum.

So lets take a closer look at Rudy Giuliani:

In 1944, Rudolph W. Giuliani was born to a working class family in Brooklyn, New York. As the grandson of Italian immigrants, Mayor Giuliani learned a strong work ethic and a deep respect for America's ideal of equal opportunity. He attended Bishop Loughlin Memorial High School (Class of '61) in Brooklyn, Manhattan College (Class of '65) in the Bronx and New York University Law School in Manhattan, graduating magna cum laude in 1968.

I like politicians born to working class families. When they make it to the top, and can run for president, then they prove the American dream is still alive. Giuliani is a product of public schools. He didn't attend elitist private schools or colleges, and he graduated magna cum laude at NYU Law School. No matter what you want to say about the guy, he is no dummy.

Upon graduation, Rudy Giuliani clerked for Judge Lloyd MacMahon, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York. In 1970, Giuliani joined the office of the U.S. Attorney. At age 29, he was named Chief of the Narcotics Unit and rose to serve as executive US Attorney. In 1975, Giuliani was recruited to Washington, D.C., where he was named Associate Deputy Attorney General and chief of staff to the Deputy Attorney General. From 1977 to 1981, Giuliani returned to New York to practice law at Patterson, Belknap, Webb and Tyler

Giuliani didn't start at the top, and he had to work hard to get where he is today. Clerking for a judge is hard work, and it isn't glamorous work either. Taking a job in the U.S. Attorney's office is a step up, but that too is hard and often thankless work.

In 1981, Giuliani was named Associate Attorney General, the third highest position in the Department of Justice. As Associate Attorney General, Giuliani supervised all of the US Attorney Offices' Federal law enforcement agencies, the Bureau of Corrections, the Drug Enforcement Agency, and the US Marshals.

In 1983, Giuliani was appointed US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, where he spearheaded the effort to jail drug dealers, fight organized crime, break the web of corruption in government, and prosecute white-collar criminals. Few US Attorneys in history can match his record of 4,152 convictions with only 25 reversals.

In 1989, Giuliani entered the race for mayor of New York City as a candidate of the Republican and Liberal parties, losing by the closest margin in City history. However in 1993, his campaign focusing on quality of life, crime, business and education made him the 107th Mayor of the City of New York. In 1997 he was re-elected by a wide margin, carrying four out of New York City's five boroughs.

Giuliani put together an amazing record as a US Attorney, it is almost too bad that he left the practice to pursue politics; however, it was certainly New York's gain...

As Mayor, Rudy Giuliani has returned accountability to City government and improved the quality of life for all New Yorkers. Under his leadership, overall crime is down 57%, murder has been reduced 65%, and New York City - once infamous around the world for its dangerous streets - has been recognized by the F.B.I. as the safest large city in America for the past five years.

New York City's law enforcement strategies have become models for other cities around the world, particularly the CompStat program, which won the 1996 Innovations in Government Award from the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. CompStat allows police to statistically monitor criminal activity on specific street corners as well as citywide, holding precinct commanders accountable for criminal activity in their neighborhoods. Because this data is updated constantly, it enables the police to become a proactive force in fighting crime, stopping crime trends before they become crime waves that negatively effect the quality of life for neighborhood residents.

When Mayor Giuliani took office, one out of every seven New Yorkers was on welfare. Mayor Giuliani has returned the work ethic to the center of City life by implementing the largest and most successful welfare-to-work initiative in the country, cutting welfare rolls in half while moving over 640,000 individuals from dependency on the government to the dignity of self-sufficiency. In addition, Giuliani has enacted a record of over $2.5 billion in tax reductions - including the commercial rent tax, personal income tax, the hotel occupancy tax, and the sales tax on clothing for purchases up to $110 dollars. In addition, hundreds of millions of dollars have been returned to the private sector as a result of the Mayor's aggressive campaign to root out organized crime's influence over the Fulton Fish Market, the private garbage hauling industry, and wholesale food markets throughout the City. These reforms, combined with the fiscal discipline which enabled the Mayor to turn an inherited $2.3 billion dollar budget deficit into a multi-billion dollar surplus, have led the City to an era of broad-based growth with a record 450,000 new private sector jobs created in the past seven years. As news of the City's resurgence has spread around the nation and the world, tourism has grown to record levels.

In the 80's NY City was a dirty, crime ridden, poverty ridden city on the decline. Rudy took office and cut crime in half, reduced welfare dependence, instituted tax cuts, and turned a 2.3 billion dollar deficit into a multibillion dollar surplus. No matter how you slice it, that is effective leadership. Moreover, his policies of welfare reform and tax cuts are in keeping with conservative values.

Mayor Giuliani is committed to nurturing and empowering New York City's children. By creating the Administration for Children's Services, New York City now has an accountable, proactive and effective protector for our City's most vulnerable children that is recognized as a national model. Moreover, New York City is working everyday to find loving families for children requiring adoption. The City has completed a record number of adoptions since 1996 - more than 20,000 - marking a dramatic 65% increase over the previous six-year period. Mayor Giuliani has also been a leader in getting health insurance to children through the innovative HealthStat initiative, which uses computer technology to coordinate a citywide effort to enroll children in existing health insurance programs. To date, 96,000 eligible children and families have been given access to health insurance through the HealthStat initiative. These improvements have increased hope and opportunity for all New York City's children and laid the foundation for our City to be even stronger in the 21st century.

To turn around the nation's largest urban public education system, Giuliani has worked tirelessly to restore accountability and raise standards throughout the City's schools. Student-teacher ratios are at an all-time low, while the annual operating budget for New York City's public schools has increased from $8 billion to $12 billion. Bureaucratic roadblocks to meaningful reform such as social promotion and principal tenure have ended, while programs such as bilingual education and special education have been reformed for the first time in a quarter century. Under the Mayor's leadership, New York City has introduced innovative new instructional programs that improve reading skills, give all students access to computers, and restore arts education as a fundamental part of the school curriculum. In the past year, these successful education initiatives have been accompanied by the establishment of 300-book libraries in every classroom and weekend classes for science and English instruction. In October 2000, the Mayor launched the New York City Charter School Improvement Fund, the first fund ever offered by a city government to help charter schools with equipment and facilities costs. The fund is the most recent example of the Mayor's commitment to both providing quality educational alternatives to all City families, regardless of their income, and to spurring the New York City public schools to improve through competition.

Under Rudy Giuliani's leadership, New York City has become the best-known example of the resurgence of urban America. From his success at cleaning up Times Square and other public spaces around the City to closing the Fresh Kills landfill on Staten Island, Mayor Giuliani has worked tirelessly to pass New York to the next generation better and more beautiful than it was before he entered office.
Source.

When you read something like that, Giuliani starts looking like the sort of man who is fit to be the Commander in Chief. When you read this, Giuliani takes on a whole new light:

Sixteen hours had passed since the Twin Towers crumbled and fell, and people kept telling Rudy Giuliani to get some rest. The indomitable mayor of New York City had spent the day and night holding his town together. He arrived at the World Trade Center just after the second plane hit, watched human beings drop from the sky and--when the south tower imploded--nearly got trapped inside his makeshift command center near the site. Then he led a battered platoon of city officials, reporters and civilians north through the blizzard of ash and smoke, and a detective jimmied open the door to a firehouse so the mayor could revive his government there. Giuliani took to the airwaves to calm and reassure his people, made a few hundred rapid-fire decisions about the security and rescue operations, toured hospitals to comfort the families of the missing and made four more visits to the apocalyptic attack scene.

Now, around 2:30 a.m., Giuliani walked into the Upper East Side apartment of Howard Koeppel and his longtime partner, Mark Hsiao. Koeppel, a friend and supporter of Giuliani's, had been lending the mayor a bedroom suite since June, when Giuliani separated from his second wife, Donna Hanover, and moved out of Gracie Mansion. His suit still covered with ash, Giuliani hugged Koeppel, dropped into a chair and turned on the television--actually watching the full, ghastly spectacle for the first time. He left the TV on through the night in case the terrorists struck again, and he parked his muddy boots next to the bed in case he needed to head out fast. But he was not going to be doing any sleeping. Lying in bed, with the skyscrapers exploding over and over again on his TV screen, he pulled out a book--Churchill, the new biography by Roy Jenkins--turned straight to the chapters on World War II and drank in the Prime Minister's words: I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat.
Read the rest of this amazing story.

Not everything about Rudy Giuliani is positive and appealing to conservatives. For instance, he has been married three times. This shouldn't matter to most people, but conservatives are big on marriage and family values.

Giuliani's previous positions on gun laws, abortion, affirmative action, prayer in school, and civil unions for gays, all seem to be at odds with conservative values. Sean Hannity asked Giuliani about a number of these issues on Hannity and Colmes, and Giuliani did a fine job addressing the issues.





(big ups to lgf)

So where do I stand with regards to Giuliani? I wouldn't go as far as endorsing him and saying he has my vote, yet, but I have a lot of respect and admiration for the man. I think he would be a good, fair, effective leader. He is VERY electable and an excellent choice for the Republican party, if they want to win in 2008. I'm not sold on the fact that he is the best conservative, but he is certainly conservative enough and far more conservative than what we'll get with a Democrat in the White House in '08.

I will, of course, update this post from time to time as I will with all of the other candidates I've discussed thus far.

Thoughts on '08: Republicans: Rumsfeld

I think the 2008 Presidential Elections will be the most vicious, divisive, ridiculous election yet. This year the Democrats will probably pick another loser: Shrillary won't win, Obama won't win, Biden won't win, Kucinich won't win, Edwards won't win, Gore won't win... it's slim pickens for the Democrats, and unless they can pull a Lieberman out of their hoohoo's - that is a Democrat who has broad appeal on both sides of the aisle, and who can be trusted with foreign policy and waging the war on Terror - the Democrats are going to have another disappointing national election.

If the Democrats can't pick a winner, then the election becomes the Republicans' to lose; but conservative America cannot get too excited. There were lessons to be learned in '06. Complacency will not win the election. Winning this election is going to take a lot of hard work, and a true conservative candidate who can motivate our base. The Republicans lost '06 because the Republican candidates had lost their way. They weren't conservative fiscally, and they lacked the moral conviction to do the right thing. Most of the Republicans who did lose lost to Democratic candidates who ran on a more conservative platform than the incumbent Republicans.

For the Republicans to win, they will need a charismatic, intelligent, well spoken candidate who truly represents the ideals of conservatism and is a patriot through and though. To that end, I see no candidate better qualified than this man:



Unfortunately for all of America, I am certain that Mr. Rumsfeld probably wouldn't even consider a run in '08. I think he can win. I think he would win. I think he would represent the best hope for all of America in the coming years.

Washington has no better-spoken, intelligent, dedicated patriot than Donald Rumsfeld. I just wish he would run. If you are on board, share this sentiment on your blog. I know that from one voice you can cause a murmur, from a murmur can come a chorus, and from a chorus can come a deafening rally cry. If we cry out loud enough, maybe Mr. Rumsfeld will hear us, and head our call.

From this blogger's perspective, Rumsfeld is MY first choice.

Thoughts on '08: Democrats: Barack Obama

The next Democratic front-runner is a short, formerly Muslim, half-black, Senator with notably large ears: Barack Obama. I think he has a MUCH better chance of getting the Democratic nod than Hillary; however, I do NOT think he can win in '08.

I know a lot of people on the left will strongly disagree with this idea; however, I can honestly say that I do not personally know a single racist Republican. I do know a LOT of racist Democrats.

I live in a Democrat stronghold. I live in a city that has been decaying for decades, under corrupt leadership, and immense poverty. I live in a city that used to be a really, really nice place to live. Sadly, blacks have been used as a scapegoat by MANY of the Democrats who live in this area. I blame the Democrats for holding this position, because all the people who have expressed that position to me are Democrats. I've not met a single Republican who ever shared that sentiment. Ever.

The position held by the Democrats where I live is this: "Everything was perfect before the blacks moved in; but after they moved in, property values plummeted, crime increased exponentially, and all the decent people had to move out of the city. Since the whites lest, the city has done nothing but rot and waste potential ever since."

I know that is disgusting. I agree. But that sentiment hasn't been coming from the Right, at least not where I live.

I live in a union stronghold. The unions have basically run every business out of town. No business would want to come to where I live because the union mentality is so pervasive. Along with the unions this area has a long sad tradition of organized crime. Between the union crooks and the mob, no big corporation would even consider wanting to do business where I live. Because jobs are scarce where I live, MOST intelligent, well educated, ambitious youth move as far away from this city as possible.

Local politicians have a history of being owned by the mob and the union interests. The leadership in this area have been corrupt for generations. In recent years, the federal government has been cracking down on the organized crime and political crooks. Some of those who were sent to jail said matter-of-factly, "It's just the way things are done around here."

Amazingly, the Democrats in this area don't see the organized crime and the corrupt unions as the problem with this area. Where I live, Democrats know who is really to blame.

This kind of thinking is disgusting. I do not hold those beliefs at all. Not at all. It just isn't how I was brought up. BUT, I do know that racism does still exist. The conservatives and Republicans in this area tend NOT to hold those sorts of beliefs.

A well-educated, capable black has a better chance of being elected as a Republican in this town than as a Democrat. That is the sad reality of race-politics in many cities in America.

On his skin color alone, I do not believe Obama can win. I'm not racist for thinking this, I am intellectually honest. It is because I truly believe that Democrats, as a whole, do not want to see a black President: that is why I think Obama cannot win.

I do think that a Colin Powell type figure COULD win. (With regards to Mr. Powell, I think his work for Bush in the lead up to the war has damaged his image politically to the point that he probably could not win in '08, but he is a great example of the type of candidate that the Republicans could put forward and who actually could win). I also think the first black President will be a Republican, which would be fitting for the party of Lincoln.

It will happen, it is just a matter of time, but it is not going to happen in '08.

Now, one could easily argue that the race issue (even if I am right) is not the only reason that Obama will not win in '08.

He is too young. He is too politically inexperienced. He has converted his religion from Islam - not the best fact to have on one's resume when running for the position of commander in chief during a war against radical Islam. His political views are too uncertain - I know that conservatives are putting out the image that he is as far left as Clinton, Pelosi, et al; however, I'm not so sure that this is the case.

All these things said, my mother thinks he would be a good president. (And my mother is a good judge of character). I don't know enough about Obama to say whether he would make a good president, but I know enough about America to say that he won't win the Democratic nod, let alone the White House.

(It is probably important to note that I did not focus on Obama much at all. I didn't give much in the way of reasons not to vote for him. I simply stated why he won't win and why)

Thoughts on '08: Democrats: Hillary Clinton

There is a tremendous amount of attention being given to the 2008 Presidential Elections. I believe '08 will be the most vicious, divisive, ridiculous election yet. I've been writing a series on the '08 elections, Thoughts of '08.

Originally, I planned on making this all one post, however, my ambition sometimes gets the better of me. There is no way I could talk about the Democrats, Republicans, and all of the front runners, and keep it down to just one post. It seems every day a few more Presidential hopefuls throw their hat into the race, and I just can't keep up. Instead of trying to do one comprehensive post, it makes a lot more sense to look at all of the elements individually, one at a time. This post will focus on one Democrat front-runner who in considered by many to have a lock on the '08 election.

This post will focus on the shrill, middle-aged, socialist, woman who has already spent 8 years in the White House with her perjuring, philandering husband: Hillary Clinton. This woman has more baggage and skeleton's in her closet than perhaps any other candidate. That she is considered a front runner for the '08 Elections is a marvel.

Even if Hillary were everything her supporters claim she is, she still must overcome the fact that she is a woman running for a position traditionally held exclusively by men. It doesn't make you a chauvinist to point this out.It does not make one a chauvinist to point out that not all of America is going to be on board with the idea of a woman President.

America is a "melting pot" full of sometimes goopy, sometimes chunky, sometimes slimy, mixing, melting, melding "stuff". In this melting pot we find: Ethnic groups with long traditions of gender defined roles and positions in society; Elderly voters who will typically tend to have a more traditional approach to gender roles; ethnic groups that will vote along party lines, haters: actual bonafide chauvinists, bigots, and the like. Hillary will not get these votes. Not in the primaries. Not in the general election.

America will not elect a woman as president in '08. Not yet, not during a time of war, and certainly not if the woman running is Hillary Clinton.

Even if Hillary gets the Democratic nod, she is going to need help to win the White House. Republican women will not cross party lines just to make a "gender vote."

The Democrats I know are largely union members who have strong negative feelings towards minorities in general, strong negative feelings towards gays, and strong negative feelings about women in positions of power. Those Democrats, who seem to be in the strong majority where I live, are NOT going to vote for Hillary. (They won't vote for Obama either, for that matter)

The fact that she is a woman aside, Hillary is one of the most polarizing figures in America. The Clintons are hated and vilified on the right. I am a former Clinton supporter. In my youth, I bought into the MTV image of Bill Clinton with the saxophone. As I matured, as I paid closer attention to politics and current events, as I became educated and gained a degree in Political Science, I started to see the Clintons for what they really are: Narcissists who want nothing more than money, power, and fame... and they will stop at nothing to get these thing. They will stop at nothing.

Conservatives tend to see the Clintons for what they are. If any candidate would be capable of lighting a fire under conservative America, it is Hillary. Even if she could win the Democratic Primary (I don't think she can), she will NOT win the general election. It will never happen.

On another note, I don't believe Hillary will win American Idol this year, either.

Next time she sings the National Anthem, she should make sure she knows all the words.

Stealing a line from Sean Hannity, "Let your heart not be troubled," Hillary can't win. Despite the all the warnings from the likes of Dick Morris, Sean Hannity, and the stop Hillary crowd, I do not believe Hillary can win. She is unelectable.

The Democrats aren't stupid, so they probably already know all of this. I predict a white male gets the Democratic nod. Likewise on the Republican side. I think America does want the privilege of a woman president and a minority president. I doubt very much that when it happens it will be a Democrat, but I believe it will happen in my lifetime. I just don't believe it is going to happen in this election cycle.

Next time on Thoughts on '08, Barack Obama. As you can tell from above, I don't think he as much of a chance, and I'll tel you why.

Thoughts on '08: Democrats

As is a growing trend, I am breaking up this post into segments because it is running long and so I can work on the segments at my leisure

Can you believe how much talk there is about '08? I think the 2008 Presidential Elections will be the most vicious, divisive, ridiculous election yet. The Democrats, coming off of a strong 2006 election season are trying to keep their momentum going through 2008. Unfortunately for them, they will likely repeat the same mistakes they made in '04: the dems will pick a loser.

Here is what I mean: in 2004, the two front runners going into the primaries were a flip-flopping, waffling, whatever-the-consensus-is-at-the-time, poll watching hack who had an extremely weak record on defense (mainly because after Vietnam he slandered his fellow soldiers, repeatedly making accusations which either made him an admitted war criminal OR a liar) and who was largely considered to be "very liberal," John Kerry. His opponent was the relatively unknown candidate who appeared even weaker on defense. This candidate literally blew his own chances with a resounding YeeeHaaaw!!! The even more liberal, antiwar candidate: Howard Dean.

Neither candidate was a particularly good choice to unseat a relatively popular (at the time), strong on defense, wartime incumbent president. Democrats might point out that the election was still, very, very close; however, the Republicans won across the board. For Democrats, '04 was another step back and a loosing grip on the throat of the American taxpayer.

But then came '06. The lies about Iraq and one-sided reporting, after years of failing to get real traction, finally took hold. The left succeeded in turning the American public against the war effort (otherwise known as the effort to kill terrorists and keep America safe). With public discontent on one of the biggest national issues, and a fair dose of discontent with a Republican congress that failed to keep promises and lost sight of its conservative values, the democrats were able to win enough seats in the House and Senate to turn the political tide in D.C.

Believing they have a "mandate" from the people, the Democrats have begun down a path of self-destruction. From "symbolic resolutions" to threats of impeachment, the Dems are pursuing an extremely risky approach to governance. With only razor thin margins in the House and Senate, the Democrats must walk a fine line. Unfortunately for Democrats, they don't know where that line is, and they continue to cross it.

Speaking of crossing the line, Kerry did it.. again.

Updates: As I continue to update my thoughts on '08: Democrats, I will post new links here:
Hillary Clinton.