Politivity

A few months I ago, I selected Giuliani as my candidate of choice for the Republican nomination for President.

But now that he’s out of the race, I’m glad he didn’t get it. His endorsement of John McCain proves to me that he wasn’t committed to conservatism like he claimed he was.

Romney is now our only hope. But quite frankly, I’m thinking the American people might just need a good kick in the butt that can only result from the failures of liberalism embraced by an American president. Americans never seem to truly learn their lesson - that the policies of Reagan were far better than the policies of Carter. And that threats like 9/11 are an ever-present reality.

So, maybe it’s time for us to learn the hard way - yet again.

Hilary Clinton slammed Barrack Obama for receiving donations from Tony Rezko, whom she labeled a slum lord. In order to sustain that argument, Hilary also must slam the following Democrats:

Al Gore

John Kerry

Barbara Boxer

Democratic National Committee

Carol Mosely Braun

Jesse Jackson

The Las Vegas Review Journal has a piece about Clinton campaigning in Nevada, which has caucuses coming up. Apparently a man yelled out to her that his wife was illegal. And Clinton said

“No woman is illegal.”

Don’t take my word for it. Check it out for yourself.

Though Rudy Giuliani is my first choice for President in 2008, he’s definitely not on the comeback trail.

He started faltering when he never truly defended himself in the security detail “scandal” which, of course, never proved to be much of a scandal. But that news was buried on page 37 of the New York Times ONE MONTH after it happened.

In fact, the news of the “scandal” broke the same day as a debate, a perfect opportunity to defend himself. But Rudy missed the boat.

Unfortunately, it’s clear that Mr. Giuliani, who has the strongest record of any candidate (Dem or Rep), hired the wrong people to direct his campaign.

If I were him, I would be shaking up the senior leadership faster than you can say South Carolina (the location of the next primary, occurring this Thursday.)

Then again, Mr. Giuliani should know better. He indicated recently that President Bush hasn’t been clearly communicating to the American people about the war and our part in it. I couldn’t agree more. But if Rudy won’t defend himself on the matter of the fake scandal, then how will he defend a war that so many Americans think is wrong?

Assuming Rudy is down for the count, I’m left candidate-less. There is no one else I want to vote for who is currently in the  running.

If you were President during Bill Clinton’s tenure in the White House, would you have accepted Sudan’s offer of Osama bin Laden?

In the ABC presidential debate on Saturday night, Barack Obama suggested that the reason that Iraq has seen less violence lately is due to the 2006 elections resulting in a Democratic Congress.

Unfortunately, that logic is severely flawed.

• The Democrats not only were unable to start bringing troops home, but President Bush increased troop levels.
• The data only shows violence decreasing once the troop surge began - not in November of 2006, when elections were held.
• The Iraqi people began siding with the United States when they realized that Al Quaida was not on their side and that they were just as much a target and victims of extremist Islamic terrorism as Americans - even when they sided with the terrorists.

We also have to consider other Democrat beliefs and how they do not coincide with success in Iraq. First of all, they believe that Bush is pushing propoganda on the Iraqi people. Of course, this directly contradicts with their hatred of us. But it also contradicts with the idea that Iraqi people would see Democrats as an indication to get moving on the development of their country.

Secondly, if Iraq is in such terrible shape, how would the people even have access to the news about the Democratic victory, let alone that a major tenet of that victory including reducing troops.

The Democrats insistence that Iraq get its act together is ignorant. These people were tortured by a vicious dictator for decades. It is a worthy goal to help this nation and these people.

Pulling out troops will not end the Iraq war. And it will not make America safer. It may save the lives of some troops, but it will ultimately result in more deaths of civilians on American soil.

Keith Olbermann blames Rudy Giuliani for 9/11.

But where’s his scathing criticism of Mayor Nagin of New Orleans?

Mayor Nagin had an evacuation plan he was supposed to follow in advance of approaching hurricanes. He was to offer people the option of leaving town on school buses. But the school buses remained parked and people died.

On the other hand, New York City had a quick response to a terrorist attack that they didn’t know was coming.

And the reason Rudy Giuliani can claim that Republicans are better on terrorism is because the Democrats response to terrorists is to negotiate with them.  The Democrats think that the problem with America is “evil” corporations, you know, the kind that provide jobs and health care to its workers.

When Democrats can’t distinguish between good companies and bad terrorists, then Republicans take the lead in countering terrorism.

We will be at greater danger if the Democrats take power. Bill Clinton did little to thwart terrorism while he was in office. There was no response to the 1993 attacks on the World Trade Center. There was no response to the bombing of the USS Cole. And the response to the Embassy Bombings was to attack an aspirin factory.

Bill Clinton was offered Bin Laden and he refused him.

So yes, the Republicans are better on terror.  And we are safer with Republicans in power.

Yes.

Health care

Iran and Waterboarding

Children of Illegal Immigrants

Using Technology on the US-Mexico Border

On being cancer free

NIE report

Illegal Immigration

Judicial Appointments

The Fair Tax

Capital Gains Taxes

Democracy

Health Care

Business, Taxes, and Regulation