Archive for the Giuliani Category

Giuliani and Edwards Steppin’ Off

Posted in Elections, Giuliani, John Edwards, Mitt Romney, News, politics, Ron Paul, taxes with tags , , , , , on January 31, 2008 by Randy Streu

John Edwards has finally decided that coming in third in every single contest bodes ill for his White House dreams, and has decided to stop using his own and donor money on campaigning.  You can’t argue with the wisdom of the decision, but it does leave something of a void in the Democratic primary.  Who will publicly tell Hillary what her next big proposal should be, so she looks like a leader?  Who will be the Dems’ “Nice hair” guy?  Who will IMAO make gay jokes about?

Edwards may have seemed like the single least influential candidate (who actually mattered) on the Dem side, but I’m not sure that’s the case.  My hunch is, he’s going after a cabinet position, or even the VP spot.  I just wonder if he’ll keep playing Hillary’s Svengali now that we can’t hear him anymore.

On the Republican side, surprising absolutely nobody, Giuliani’s Florida-only campaign policy was a miserable failure, and he took solice in the arms of John McCain.  Funny… I didn’t know RINOs moved in herds.  I suppose Huckabee’ll be along shortly.

Confusingly (though not surprisingly), Ron Paul continues to both raise and waste tons of money on his freight train to nowhere.

I grow daily stronger in my conviction to vote for none of these clowns in the Primary.  We’ll have to see what the GE has in store.  I can pull the lever for Romney, and even feel okay about it.  I may have to be enticed with food to leave my couch if McCain gets the nod.


The Difference Between “Voting For” and “Voting Against”

Posted in Elections, Fred(!), Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, politics, Ron Paul with tags , , , , on January 23, 2008 by Randy Streu

If you take all the remaining GOP candidates and mash together the best qualities of each, I think we’d have the perfect conservative candidate.  Take the fiscal policies of Mitt Romney, the consistent social conservatism of Huck, the foreign policy experience of McCain and the basic knowledge of the Constitution contributed by Ron Paul (but without the crazy), and there’s my perfect candidate.  And you know what?  We had him.

We Conservatives had a candidate whose career and policies reflected nearly perfectly the fundamentals of Reagan/Goldwater conservatism.  And we let him go, because some people believed he “didn’t want it” badly enough.  Forgetting, I suppose, that the mantle of leadership often suits best those who want it least. 

Then, of course, there are those rooting for the death of classic Conservatism — those for whom growth of government, loss of independence and a building national sense of entitlement are not only inevitable, but desirable.  “Moderates.”  Pah!

Fred Thompson’s bid for the Presidency is over.  Hopefully, his message isn’t. 

For me, I was looking forward to, just once, actually voting for a candidate, instead of simply against the other guy.  Of selecting the best, instead of checking on “good enough.”

The end result, I guess, is the same, as far as the individual vote goes.  But there is an excitement, a passion, in having a candidate you believe in.  When a message resonates, when you and your co-supporters find that community that comes from realizing you are like-minded in very important ways.  For Thompson supporters, those ways included a desire to really see a return back to this country’s fundamentals.  A road back to those ideals that made this nation great.  But in Thompson’s case, it wasn’t simply the ideas — it was the candidate himself.

In spite of what the MSM may have told you, Thompson has a way of energizing his supporters — not with a flash, or a soundbite, or that charisma which produces successful car salesmen — but with an honesty, intelligence, thoughtfulness and humility long missing from the hallowed halls of Washington.  With Thompson, you know what you’re getting.  He’s slow to speak; deliberate.  And when he does, you know he understands what he’s talking about and believes in it with every fiber of his being.  Unlike many candidates, Thompson the Candidate was never afraid of telling somebody he “doesn’t know.”  If he didn’t have enough information, he didn’t give an opinion.  He doesn’t fill up the space between facts with endless monologue, so you know when he does speak, you’re getting something well-thought-out and based on as much information as possible. 

That is the candidate I was voting for

Sadly, for too many, the sizzle outweighs the steak.  So now, I’m reduced to voting against.  In the primaries, against a candidate who supported amnesty for illegal immigrants (by any name), who created and worked to pass a bill limiting the right to Free Speech; against a candidate who, it appears, will say anything to anyone to get elected, who cut taxes a few times, but begged for tax increases totalling a net increase in taxes for his state, who engages in liberal rhetoric on taxation and redistribution of wealth, who supported the mone of taxpayers going to the children of illegal immigrants; against a candidate vocally pro-abortion, who has talked a good game with the Second Amendment, but in his only executive role practically eliminated it from his city.

I will vote in the Primaries, for the reasons stated above.  I have not yet decided whether I will simply write Thompson in, and so needlessly sacrifice my voice to my principles, or vote for Romney.  I’m against Mitt-care.  I’m nervous about his flipping on the abortion issue.  But I believe he may be sincere in that. 

If I do pull the Romney lever on Super Tuesday, however, it should be known, it is not a vote for Mitt.  It is a vote against the liberalization of the Republican Party.


HUMAN EVENTS Endorses Fred Thompson

Posted in blognews, Elections, Fred Thompson, Fred(!), general, Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, News, politics, Ron Paul on January 11, 2008 by ambrose7

I was excited yesterday to hear Sean Hannity speak of a big mystery endorsement for Fred Thompson today.  I had no idea who it could be.  Lets face it Conservative group after Conservative group have endorsed Fred Thompson over the past few weeks.  I love to bring up to supporters of the Huckster that it was Fred Thompson not Mike Huckabee who the National Right to Life group supported and more recently the South Carolina Right to Life supported.  Recently South Carolina right to life even put there money where there mouth is sending out thousands of mailers supporting Fred Thompson. 

All that being said this morning I was ecstatic to read that Human Events would endorse Fred Thompson.  Human Events is the premiere conservative magazine in my opinion, with such featured columnists as Newt Gringich, and Ann Coulter.  

About there endorsement Human Events said this We begin by recalling the profound words of Ronald Reagan at the Conservative Political Action Conference Feb. 15, 1975: “A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency or simply to swell its numbers.” We believed that then, and we believe it now. The issue for us — and for the conservative community — boils down to which of the candidates is most representative of the fundamental conservative principles we believe in. The answer is Fred Thompson.  To reach that conclusion, we looked closely at the former Tennessee senator and his opponents to judge whether they measure up to conservative standards. Some come close, and others clearly do not.” 

Its good to see one Conservative media group to step out and do the right thing.  I would now challenge both Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh who must support Fred Thompson because of those things they say they want in a President to step out and do the same before it’s too late.

To see the rest of the article from Human Events –

To tell Sean Hannity “Your A great American now step up for Conservatism and support Fred Thompson” –

To Tell Rush Limbough the same –


Thompson on the Move

Posted in abortion, Fred Thompson, Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul on January 11, 2008 by ambrose7

Its good to See Fred exposing the lies that Mike Huckabee has based his campaign on.  He has pointed out time and time again the flawed record of the Huckster who has been able to do little to defend himself.  Giuliani Seems like a non player, McCain just looks Old.  Mitt seems to be sitting back and enjoying the fact he not being attacked much tonight. 

The commentator just threw the Huckster a curve ball about him being quoted in the paper about wives being submissive to your Husband.  He answered it sort off, But the religious right should take note he just said He would in no way impose his religion as President.

They now just asked Ron Paul if he even felt he had a chance to be elected.  By the way Ron Paul seems just as crazy as ever.  I wish they would stop asking him to participate.  Instead we could get a parrot who sat in the corner and just continued to say “No war, no war, no war, no war”


Are We Watching Conservative Republicanism Die?

Posted in Constitution, Economy, Elections, Fred(!), Giuliani, healthcare, immigration, Mike Huckabee, national defense, News, politics, Ron Paul, Second Amendment, Stupid Media, taxes with tags , , , , , on January 8, 2008 by Randy Streu

I’m beginning to think the liberals and the media (but, as some would say, I repeat myself) have finally won.  Or, perhaps, are about to.  When I look at polls, when I listen to people talk (both of which are horrible, horrible methods with which to gain information — and I understand that) it seems people actually want the government to do their thinking for them.  They want the government to deny them liberty and force charity, or health insurance, or social security — or whatever.  They are truly beginning to believe that the average citizen, perhaps, shouldn’t be trusted with weapons — Second Amendment be damned.

This is what happens when you stop thinking with your brain.

What’s been really demoralizing to me personally is that this disease of liberal stupidity (to risk being redundant again) is striking in the Republican party — even harder than in the past.  I’m demoralized because, frankly, I don’t have the strength to start a new party which will stick to Goldwater conservative principles, the Constitution — and not force us to retreat from a war that we’re winning.

For example, as we move along in the primaries, we start looking at what sort of impact the Republican candidates are going to have in New Hampshire.  Why?  More importantly, why would conservatives wish to use a traditionally blue state (in which even many of the Republicans are liberal) to gauge the outcome of the Republican ballot?  Fred(!) Thompson has wisely chosen to skip this state altogether and move along to SC.  Why?  Simply put, because that’s when the Republican race begins.  I’m not going to harp on this point — Limbaugh touched on it today, and better than I could.

My point is that the Republican party seems to be under the impression that pandering to the Left, that producing a liberal candidate and winning the election is, in fact, winning.  Folks, I’m here to tell you, giving up liberty is not winning.  Period. 

Allowing the government to have any control over your personal life, including whether or not you and your family are covered by health insurance, is a loss of liberty.

Allowing your tax dollars to subsidize abortion, welfare, amnesty (even in the form of educational aid) or whatever, instead of those thing for which the federal government was actually formed is, in fact, loss of liberty.

And for what, Republicans?  To get a president with the (R) next to his name?  What good will that do, if the choice simply brings us further down the Left, after all?  Just what the hell is the point of having a Republican president if he governs like a Democrat?

I’ll close with words of wisdom from Fred Thompson.  “I believe conservatives beat liberals only when they challenge their outdated positions — not embrace them.”


Four Hours Later

Posted in blognews, Constitution, Elections, Fred Thompson, Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, national defense, News, Ron Paul, taxes on January 7, 2008 by ambrose7

Today sat and watched 4 hours of Republican debates, right around 2 hours from ABC/face book, and a 2 hour debate from For News.  On a positive note there were no gay x-military Hilary Clinton supporters asking the candidates questions.  The candidates were also give time to actually answer a number of the questions given.  On those questions Fred answered thoughtfully and completely.  Now for the negative side of things, it seems both ABC and Fox were basically only interested in getting Huckabee and McCain to attack Mitt and Visa Versa.  It seemed hugely apparent tonight on fox, as those three would be brought into an argument over a given topic, Then both Rudy and Fred were asked if they had anything to add.

On another note after these Debates I’m worried more then ever; if these are the top 5 Republican leaders we have to offer what is the state of the Republican Party.  Isn’t the Republican Party the party of Conservatives?  As far as I can tell there are only 1 ½ Conservatives running.

Fred Thompson – The very definition of a Regan Conservative, I’m truly baffled, as he is exactly what the Republican Party has been saying they wanted for the past year, yet we can’t seem to get behind him not that it counts.

Mitt Romney – Other then his stance on Health Care (Which is debatable) Mitt seems pretty conservative.  Unfortunately he has only had some of these beliefs for the last few years?  What would we get in the White House I’m still not sure?  So I give him a mark of ½ Conservative.

After these 2, the argument can no longer be made who is more conservative, but who is less liberal?  To be honest I’m not sure.

Huckabee – Weak on Immigration, weak on taxes and weak on spending.  Not to mention Weak on healthcare, weak on foreign affairs.  All he really has going for him is he’s strong on social issues, and he uses the name Regan a lot when he talks. 

McCain – Hugely weak on immigration, and opposed Bush Tax Cuts.  He’s strong of Foreign affairs and Spending, but is pretty non-existent when it comes to social issues.

Giuliani – Hugely weak on Social issues and immigration (lets face it he cleaned up New York but made in a sanctuary city).  Sure he’s good with taxes, spending, and ok on healthcare, but if it wasn’t for Sept 11, would most of the country even know who he was?

As far as Hunter and Paul go, Duncan Hunter was not invited to either debate, and Ron Paul only the first one.  Both should consider dropping out sooner rather then later, but we will talk about that more tomorrow.


Sorry, Post… Fred’s right again.

Posted in Fred(!), Giuliani, Stupid Media with tags , , , on December 10, 2007 by Randy Streu

Generally speaking, I like the New York Post.  However, like most New York publications — like most New Yorkers (I’m referring here to city-dwellers), they are decidedly geocentrist.  Like most Americans tend to believe they’re from the greatest country on earth, New Yorkers believe they are from the Single Best City on the planet. 

Now, I like the City.  I think it’s a nice place to visit.  And while I believe that, indeed, nearly every type of American is represented there (note: I did say “nearly”), living in part of the rest of the State that New York City calls home, I can say that they don’t even represent the entire state — let alone the entire country.  Even though they think they do.

What I’m referring to here is the New York Post’s recent column, taking issue with Fred(!) Thompson’s statement that “New York City is not emblematic of the rest of the country.”  That the writer took this statement as a “veiled insult” frankly serves to prove my point.  What?  Everyone’s not like us?  How dare you?!?!  Guess what?  Omaha is also not “emblematic of the rest of the country.”  And I doubt the fine people of Nebraska would take issue with me, Fred, Romney or even Giuliani suggesting that.

But it’s important to understand from whence this attitude comes.  In New York State, there is a limited belief in anything above, say, Syracuse as actually existing.  There’s also a tendency to pander to New York City.  What New York City wants, generally speaking, she gets — the rest of the state be damned.  Which is why we have a whole bunch of dumb, nanny-state laws created for the city, when in fact at least half this state is rural.

I promised myself I wasn’t going to rant, as much as it annoys me, about the fact that Albany pretty much treats anyone who doesn’t live in Albany or NYC like toothless idiots who need to be looked after.  So I won’t.  Really.

Look, the guy from the post makes some interesting points.  Somewhat.  But it should be taken in context.  The Post is pretty much firmly in Giuliani’s corner.  He’s a New Yorker, after all.  Thompson said something about Giuliani, and dared make the claim that not every American was a New Yorker at heart, and the Post felt like they had their toes stepped on. 

So, I don’t know, really, how Thompson could’ve softened the blow.  After all, when the declaration that you’re not just like everyone else is taken as an insult, it’s kinda hard to find the right eggshells to walk on.  But I’ll try.  New York is unique.  Always has been.  Always will be.  And God Bless ’em for it.  But “Unique” means “not like everyone else.”  That pretty much lines up with Thompson’s statement.  You can’t be both.  You can’t be both unique, and indicitive of the rest of the country.  The fact is, there is no one type of American.  There are many.  There is no one type of New Yorker.  City or State. 

And that’s okay.

Thompson’s point stands, though.  Giuliani can’t approach running the country the same as he would running New York.  For one thing, you can’t do that and be small government — which, fyi, is what a Republican is.  You can’t base your decisions for the entire country on a segment of the population.  Really, you shouldn’t run a state that way, either — but I promised not to get into it.  I said it before and I’ll say it again: we aren’t electing a mayor. 

And, as a registered Republican, I’m certainly not interested in putting up a  candidate (R) who has a record as liberal as Giuliani’s is.