About Me

Name: Mike
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Words Matter: Obama and McCain

Please watch these short clips:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WynLgJFBxSs&eurl=http://race42008.com/2008/04/18/obama-deliberately-distorts-mccains-comments-on-the-economy/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acy28CuLKiQ&eurl=http://race42008.com/page/4/

This from a man who has run a campaign on words, honesty, and transparency. Barack Obama has, time and again, distorted John McCain's comments for political gain. You may say every politician does this, yet Obama holds himself to a higher standard when he tells us he wants to change the fundamental nature of "Washington politics." I truly hope America wakes up to the possibility that it is flirting to elect a man not long removed from his State Senate term, one who has run on a promise of hope and change even though his words and deeds say otherwise. Barack Obama was elected to serve the people of Illinois, not to spend his entire term running for President.

Let us all hope that the American voters see what I see: A chance to elect a man who has served his country for nearly his all life. One who gave up the chance of freedom in Vietnam because his fellow prisoners were not yet released. John McCain has been involved in nearly every foreign policy crisis of the last quarter century, understands the complex nature of the war in Iraq, and is wise enough to know that higher taxes, more spending, and increased regulation will not fix our economy. I am not questioning Barack Obama's intelligence, eloquence, or patriotism. I am, however, saying that he is not ready or able to assume the Presidency. He has been exposed for what he truly is: A regular politician, a man who says one thing, but does another. Obama is a liberal's liberal; he thinks government can love and help you. It can't and it won't. This country was born from a hatred for the heavy hand of federal power; let's pray that we don't elect Mr. Socialist-lite.

P.S.- I will call Pennsylvania 50% to 42% in Clinton's favor for Tuesday.

Anyone else care to guess?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Charting a Course Towards Victory: John McCain 2008

On the night of March 4, as the polls closed in Texas and Ohio and votes were tallied, the obvious became official: Senator John McCain had secured the Republican Party nomination for President by surpassing the required 1,191 delegate threshold. Suddenly, the GOP had a new face; a face rarely ever associated with party norms, a face wrinkled and old, one that had endured the bitterness of Washington politics and, before that, the horrors of war. How could we pass over other qualified contenders? More importantly, could this man win in November, especially in a year in which Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama would turn out new voters and untold amounts of cash? Yet, despite all of his scars, John McCain is the only Republican ready, willing, and able to keep the Democrats from the White House.

An Unprecedented Challenge

Any Republican would begin the 2008 campaign facing daunting and nearly insurmountable challenges. The GOP goes in knowing that 1988 stands as the only time since World War II that a party was able to elect three consecutive presidents (Reagan in 1980 and 1984, George H.W. Bush in 1988). On top of the electoral history, the party is burdened with a very unpopular sitting president, a general public weary of two ongoing wars, and an economy buckling under the weight of rising energy prices and a faltering housing market.

As for our adversaries, Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both have unique electoral appeal. Nominating either as presidential candidates would be an historic event and their campaigns have shown the ability to excite new voters and produce record fundraising. These obstacles may prove too formidable to overcome, no matter how great our efforts. Yet it is imperative to our chances that the Republican Party platform abandons the flawed style of conservatism practiced by the Bush Administration. Rolling out the conventional Republican talking points or relying on the ever-elusive "base" will not produce a win in November. Republicans must reinvigorate the party’s platform in 2008 and reach out to all Americans.

Reinvigorating the “Big Tent”

"As the Party of the open door, while steadfast to our commitment to our ideals, we respect and accept that members of our Party can have deeply held and sometimes differing views. This diversity is a source of strength, not a sign of weakness, and so we welcome into our ranks all who may hold differing positions."

The above quote appears in the preamble of the Republican Party's 2004 platform put forth at the national convention. It speaks to the necessity of expanding our party's support in today's acrimonious political environment. John McCain has already established his ability to draw a unique constituency, as Catholics, the elderly, Hispanics, Independents, and veterans delivered him key wins in the primary season. In fact, McCain is the ideal candidate to vie for the coveted "Reagan Democrats," those predominantly working-class voters who reside in Northern states such as Michigan, New Jersey, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Non-ideological in nature, these voters will be drawn to McCain's common sense approach to spending, immigration, and defense.

Sadly, conservatives are now tagged as radical religious fanatics who bungled the Iraq War and ignored the needs of the average American. Conservatism has taken on a terribly negative connotation often synonymous with stubborn resistance and utter negligence. The Republican Party, once united behind the pure ideals of conservatism, now has lost its way by polluting its true intention and scope. Shaping a fresh narrative for the American people must be a priority for the McCain campaign. As the Democratic candidates exude their party's diversity, charisma, and (inexperienced) youth, the GOP must highlight examples of successful conservative governance.

McCain's ability to present a dynamic, efficient, and reformist platform will be imperative to his chances in the fall. He should encourage Republican governors Charlie Crist of Florida, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Sarah Palin of Alaska, Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, and Mark Sanford of South Carolina to stump on his behalf. This group represents the next generation of party leaders. Their active campaigning could dispel any beliefs that the Grand Ole' Party suffers from a lack of youthful and inspiring officials. In broader terms, McCain will be best suited by adopting a realist and sobering tone: acknowledge the problems our nation is facing, point out his past objections to failed policies, and push results-driven market solutions.

A War Left Unfinished

Six and half years removed from the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks, the American public has lost faith in our international security policies. The semantics of a "War on Terror" has overshadowed American national interests and the overriding principles of our military action. John McCain must remind the public of the ever-evolving threat of militant Islam and other violent fundamentalists. He would be wise to showcase his quarter-century of foreign policy expertise and, before that, his time as a Navy pilot and POW in Vietnam.

McCain, despite the obvious gap he enjoys in international experience relative to the Democratic candidates, realizes he stands on shaky ground. As a steadfast supporter of the President Bush's "surge" strategy in Iraq, he also must illustrate how his foreign policy would diverge from the administration. While the voters will reward him for his unwavering courage on Iraq and his original opposition to Defense Secretary Rumsfeld's misguided military reforms, they will not tolerate further alienation of our vital allies or the general appeasement of dubious regimes in Russia and Pakistan.

One of the more regretful weaknesses of the Bush foreign policy was the President's disregard for public communication. Whether he has had a general aversion to voter interaction or simply found it meaningless once his approval ratings dropped into the freezing range, it is obvious that Bush has accomplished more to secure our nation than is actually perceived. John McCain could reverse this trend by giving a continual series of policy speeches on our purpose and goals on the world stage. An emphasis should be placed upon our success in preventing an attack on the homeland since September 11th and the inroads we have made in fracturing terror cells abroad. Most importantly, McCain would be better well positioned to win the Presidency if he can harness the public dialogue that has been previously filled by misconception and general disconnect.

Furthermore, the Arizona Senator could outline a few key Middle Eastern policies that would be both pragmatic and just. Simply put, McCain cannot shy away from our failure to capture Osama Bin Laden. The campaign should reiterate his undying desire to bring Bin Laden to justice. Additionally, America must not present conflicting sympathies to other nations. A McCain Administration must reconsider our aid to non-democracies such as Ethiopia, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. We cannot call for democratic reform in countries such as Egypt, Iran, and Syria while turning a blind eye to authoritarian and oppressive rule in nations that assist us in our struggle against radical expansionist forces.

The push towards dramatic Middle Eastern democratization over the past five years is both admirable and long overdue. Yet the movement does not reflect the realities of Middle Eastern politics or the chance of achieving lasting liberalization. The election of Hamas in Palestine is a prime example of what can go wrong if a long-suppressed and economically-distressed electorate is empowered too quickly. In the Middle East, The United States must carefully walk a tightrope between our duty to push for individual liberty versus the need for viable civic institutions and economic mobility. In countries such as Pakistan, where the military is the only true functioning body, we must not forget the fragile nature of governing coalitions and their unsteady grasp on violent groups waiting for chaos to erupt.

From a more personal standpoint, John McCain needs to address his views on torture. As a man who served his nation with unrelenting honor and sacrifice, one who suffered five years of brutal abuse in a Vietcong prison, McCain must denounce and reject torture. Unless the homeland faces an imminent invasion or attack, overly-aggressive interrogations, whether physical or mental or mental in nature, are unacceptable. The United States has a chance to maintain a moral high ground over our murderous enemies and we cannot imitate their cruel and monstrous tactics. Let it be known that a denunciation of torture, no matter how evil the enemy, is not a sign of surrender. John McCain would be taking a principled stand, drawing a line and daring any foreign threat to defeat our ideas, our diplomacy, our military, and our freedom.

Spending and Economics

Simply strengthening his national security credentials alone will not be enough to deliver the White House to John McCain. As the economy sours and voters shift their focus to domestic issues, the Republican Party cannot follow our past rhetoric in lock-step unity. If nothing changes, 2008 will soon turn into 1992, when a foreign policy novice in Bill Clinton defeated an experienced executive in George H.W. Bush. Growing instability calls for an engaging discussion on trade and the effects of globalization on the American economy. John McCain must clearly state the benefits of free and fair trade and highlight the consequences of protectionist policies. America has never gotten anywhere by shuttering its windows and closing for business. An optimistic view of trade, however, will not completely remedy the feelings of uncertainty among the American people.

An examination of the McCain website reveals an economic outline heavily adorned with tax cuts. After once voting against the Bush tax cuts, McCain has pledged to make the legislation permanent. He has also included broad middle class tax credits and other new cuts. This country was born from a protest against an unwieldy tax burden and tax breaks undoubtedly have an important role in promoting economic growth, mobilization, and widespread prosperity. Yet, with a looming federal debt, the Republican Party cannot simply rubberstamp their support for every tax cut. Middle class Americans are facing a growing crunch and the government should not be foolish enough to think that the money they want to keep in the public’s hands will actually be spent on economic goods. Officials at the Federal Reserve and Treasury would be better suited spending their resources on propping up our weak currency and fighting inflation.

Two economic proposals would significantly enhance John McCain’s appeal to working class voters. The Senator has already done a brilliant job at blasting Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for their taste of wasteful spending habits. His refusal to request any earmarks for his home state is an example of his enduring fiscal restraint. McCain will continue to ridicule Democrats and Republicans alike for their manipulation of public funds to win over particular constituencies. Since Clinton and Obama stand among the top ten most spend-happy legislators on Capitol Hill, general election voters will be increasingly drawn towards McCain’s pander-proof history. Secondly, the presumptive Republican nominee would be gain from adopting a policy to simplify the tax system. Whether it is comes from the consolidation of various taxes or the implementation of a flat tax, Americans desire a streamlined and deregulated model. Such a move will both alleviate public angst over a mind-numbing maze of tax requirements and endear John McCain to the fiscal wing of the Republican Party that may still be skeptical of the Senator’s past record.

McCain As An Agent of Change

Years from now, we will remember this election season for the word every candidate has wished to embody: change. For the Democrats, change represents withdraw from Iraq, a further increase in government spending, higher taxes, and a federally-implemented healthcare system. The American people certainly have reason to be upset. We have lost our focus abroad and our balanced fiscal habits at home. John McCain must make it clear that his administration would not be a continuation of failed Bush conservatism. In that way, he would be the real change for which this country desperately yearns. Make no mistake, liberal politics have never sat well with the public and rightly so. John McCain will govern as an efficient, effective, and dynamic conservative. He will carry out international affairs in a way that puts an end to a continuing Al-Qaeda threat, strengthens our alliances with nations committed to democracy, and takes a harder look at supposed “friends” in Pakistan, Russia, and Saudi Arabia. In addition, our economy will benefit from a McCain Presidency that stresses the power of the free market without forgetting the role government plays in oversight and reform. Whether it is immigration, healthcare, or alternative energy, McCain will not hesitate to engage party leaders from both sides of the aisle. I am fully confident that he will place country before party, not afraid of alienating special interests or corrupt coalitions.

In a year of uncertainty within the Republican ranks, as we prepare to face a trailblazing Democratic candidate, John McCain is one of the last true American patriots. Given the chance to return home during his captivity in Vietnam, McCain refused because other prisoners were still being held. His courage and fortitude does not mean he deserves the Presidency, yet his burning desire to fight through to the end illustrates he ability to outlast any obstacle. I will be proud to cast my first ballot for John Sidney McCain, a man capable of leading America to a greater future.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Michelle Obama and America

I would like to take a moment to examine something that Michelle Obama said at a recent campaign rally in Wisconsin:

"What we have learned over this year is that hope is making a comeback. It is making a comeback. And let me tell you something -- for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country. And not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change. And I have been desperate to see our country moving in that direction and just not feeling so alone in my frustration and disappointment. I've seen people who are hungry to be unified around some basic common issues, and it's made me proud."

A video of the rally can be found here: http://www.breitbart.tv/html/49244.html

Let me first say that Michelle Obama seems like a very intelligent and elegant woman. Her husband has run an uplifting and inspiring campaign worthy of the attention it receives. I would like nothing more than to keep Billary from another White House term and Barack stands a great chance of derailing Queen Clinton for the Democratic nomination.

Mrs. Obama's assertion, however, that her husband's campaign of hope marks the first time in her adult life that she is truly proud of her country is shocking and border-line reprehensible. Its as if Michelle Obama has anointed her husband as America's messiah or savior in our dying hour. She has bought into adoration the media has heaped upon Barack and her sentiment represents the overall attitude prevalent recently in the Obama camp: Change, no matter what that means, will dominant the 2008 campaign. To hell with experience, policy, and realism.

I understand that the last seven years under the Bush administration have not been successful on a number of fronts. Our focus on Afghanistan and Al-Qaeda has slipped, Osama Bin Laden is still on the run, strategies for Iraq have ranged from inadequate to poor, our financial standing is growing worse, and our reputation is souring across the world. These problems do not even include domestic issues surrounding illegal immigration, social security, and homeland security. I am a registered Republican who is deeply disappointed by the failure of Bush's "conservative" governance. The president has strayed from the principles of limited spending and less regulation, while losing our party's ability to eloquently communicate conservative ideals to the American people.

Despite the trials of the last seven years, it is quite astonishing that Michelle Obama cannot find reasons to be proud of her country. Are our contributions to the fall of the Soviet Union and global Communism not worthy of her praise? What about our efforts to stop the ruthless killing of innocent Muslims in Kosovo during the late 1990's? Does our promotion and implementation of free markets that spread innovation to the disadvantaged not warrant a pat on the back? From aid for HIV/AIDS patients in Africa to development funds for tsunami victims in Southeast Asia, Americans have continually shown their kindness and benevolent power. There is not enough space in this email to record why America's global rule has been beneficial due to increased democracy, freedom, and economic growth.

I implore Michelle Obama do rethink her misguided logic. She has lived out her adult life enjoying the right to free speech, vote in democratic elections, and follow any social lifestyle. There is indeed much to be grateful for and proud of as an American. I am only nineteen years old and I am proud to say I am an American. I recognize that we are not perfect and never will be, but Mrs. Obama would certainly not like to see a world without us.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Hypocrisy of the Clinton Machine

It seems appropriate, only 17 days until Iowa, to make note of some interesting developments. First off, former President Bill Clinton appeared on the Charlie Rose show a few nights ago, speaking out for his wife's campaign. He scolded fellow Democrats who are thinking of supporting Senator Barack Obama's candidacy. Clinton accused Obama that the latter had desired the presidency his entire life (and his wife has not?). The former President called an Obama nomination a "roll of the dice," one that would deprive the voters of his more "experienced" wife.

The irony in all of this, of course, is the fact that Bill Clinton himself ran as the "agent of change" candidate in 1992. He prided himself as being new, fresh, and clean of Washington's dirty politics. In that same year, Clinton was 46 years old. Today, in 2007, Barack Obama is 46 years old. I know you may say that Clinton was a governor before running for his party's nomination. However, note this direct quote: "The same old experience is irrelevant. You can have the right kind of experience or the wrong kind of experience. And mine is rooted in the real lives of real people, and it will bring real results if we have the courage to change."[1] Sounds like Obama, doesn't it? Nope, that is Bill Clinton in 1992.

My point is that the Clintons cannot accuse anyone of unchecked pride and ambition. I am not one who believes that Bill Clinton was a bad president because of his personal relationships. Yet, it is ridiculous for Bill to tout his wife's experiences and simultaneously deride Obama as too young and too risky. His wife's "experiences" and her place in the Washington establishment were the same factors he campaigned against in 1992. 

In the end, I vehemently oppose a Hillary Clinton presidency not based on her gender nor her last name, but for her policies (or lack thereof) and character. I am not opposed to a woman in the Oval Office, but let's not elect one for the simple precedence of electing one. I have never seen a more disingenuous politician in my entire life (except for maybe Mitt Romney). You cannot call her policy fluctuations mere flip-flopping; they are more of a constant sway towards political expediency. Whereas John Kerry came across in a somewhat sincere manner, Clinton appears to stake any position for the purpose of gaining the White House. For example, Hillary was for and against drivers’ licenses for illegal immigrants during a single Democratic debate. Furthermore, the New York senator has continued to bash Republicans for pandering to special interest groups, even as she herself has built some friendly relations with big-spenders and shady political associates.

As for her touted “experience,” I find it hard to believe that voters will be fooled by the “I am a former First Lady and accomplished Senator” rhetoric. Accomplished? Hillary Clinton is a senator from New York because her husband has an office in Harlem. Besides running for president since forever, Clinton cannot point to any real achievements while in office. I may not agree with most of Barack Obama’s ideas, but at least he holds genuine and uncompromising positions. It is truly sad that Democrats view Senator Clinton as their most electable candidate for the general election. When all is said and done next November, Hillary will be left in the dust, the fence she had been trying to straddle to the presidency by her side, with Rudy or McCain galloping off towards 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. 



[1] Ron Fournier, “Clinton '92 Vs. Obama '08,” Yahoo New/Associated Press, December 17, 2007, Politics section.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Primary to End All Primaries

The American electoral process has always faced tough criticism and growing questions. Problems with the Electoral College (see 2000 Presidential race, Florida), convention system, and party primaries have risen over the years. However, we center our focus on the hot-topic issue of presidential politics today: Primary front-loading. This term refers to the practice in several states to push their 2008 Presidential primaries forward, thus giving their citizens more say and influence in determining the eventual national candidates.

The key words to focus on here are “more say” and “influence” for judging the viability and legality of frontloading. The purpose and goal of a democratic system of government is to bestow upon each citizen an equal opportunity in determining party candidates. Prior to the upcoming presidential election, both parties had designated the states of New Hampshire, Iowa, and South Carolina as bellwethers in the nominating process. Voters from these three rural and often isolated states had been given a grossly oversized voice in presidential campaigns for years. Can you imagine who would have emerged as national candidates for either party if the primaries were a one-day, nationwide event? Surely the likes of Jimmy Carter (Democrat- 1976) or George W. Bush (Republican- 2000) would have had a difficult time in a national primary.

It is quite illogical and borderline ridiculous to permit such electoral power to the voters of New Hampshire, Iowa, and South Carolina. In the past, these caucuses have occurred in mid-January of the election year. If a candidate takes hold and gains momentum by winning one or more of these states, he or she is in a prime position to grab the nomination. We must understand that for the Republican Party, these states are typical conservative bases and have proven to be the death of more moderate candidates. A perfect example of this was the breakdown and eventual collapse of Senator John McCain’s quest for the 2000 GOP nomination. After defeating George W. Bush in New Hampshire, a surging McCain was ambushed by stalwart conservatives in South Carolina and Bush went on to capture the bid. The greater mass of American voters might have been deprived of a more experienced and well-rounded candidate, but the dubious primary system prevented this possibility.

It is easy to understand the frustration and angst of the states who will rebel against electoral norms in 2008. Candidates on both sides of the aisle have put all their focus and campaign resources into the early primary states. Democrats have even had to pander to the voters in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, even though the bedrock of their party is found in urban areas along each coast. Since the nominations are determined early on, later primary states have been used exclusively as fundraising centers. As matter of fact, it is not an exaggeration to say that candidates have simply passed on through states such as Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, and even California in search of money. Voters and state leaders were tired of being trampled on by politicians that they have no sway or control in choosing. Together, these four coastal (and more diverse) states account for over 25% of the entire United States population.

As a moderate Republican, I fully endorse the advancement of party primaries by larger and more populous states that seek a greater role in the presidential nomination process. In truth, the only dissent you will hear is from the three tradition deciders: Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. In no way do I mean to write-off their importance, but the day has come where we must reduce the influence of radicals and right-wing conservatives that determine the GOP nominee for president. As an ardent Rudy Giuliani supporter, I am encouraged by the rise of centrist Northeastern and Western states in the primary process. Several states have established February 5, 2008 as a semi-national primary day, one that will take us a step closer to a true democratic process. Yet, we can do better. I call for a nationwide primary in which every state participates and every voter has the same voice. This would force candidates to face each state as a possible challenge and spread their resources equally across the nation. 
    
In essence, the practice of frontloading will promote the ideals of moderate and centrist candidates such as Giuliani. Republican and Democrat voters from the larger states will be given a greater role in taking back their hijacked parties. In most cases, these voters tend to be reasonable on such issues as terrorism, Iraq, abortion, and immigration. They look for practical solutions to the nation’s problems and do not accept bible-wielding ideologues or leftist anti-war zealots. Just take a look at the front runners from both parties for 2008: Rudy, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Barrack Obama, and Hillary Clinton. Included in that bunch is a Republican Roman Catholic mayor from a Democratic city, a maverick reformer from Arizona, a Mormon from the liberal-land of Massachusetts, a charismatic African-American senator from Illinois, and a former first-lady. The states, beliefs, religions, races, and genders they represent illustrate the rise of the purple-shaded swing electorate and the true voice of every single Amer

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Rudy's Challenge

     And so, it has begun. The inevitable demonizing of Rudy Giuliani's stances on abortion and gay rights has arrived. Let's first begin with laying down the facts. Giuliani, leading by double digits in most early GOP polls, governed a city where Democrats dominated at a 5-1 ratio. His ability to survive and succeed in such a hostile climate is a testament to his staying power and, ultimately, a potential preview for Washington. In such a climate, Rudy had to recognize a woman's right to choose and the inalienable rights of partners in civil unions. Giuliani has maintained his pro-choice views and should be applauded in today's world of flip-flop politicians. To be clear, the mayor has always professed his sincere distaste and abhorrence of abortion. He proposes that women should be counseled against it and that it should not be the first choice. In fact, adoptions were up and abortions were down 16% during his two terms in office.
    Furthermore, Giuliani believes that a marriage should remain as an institution between a man and a woman. His support for civil unions is simply a fair and logical step that many other Republicans recognize. Financial benefits and legal rights to an established partnership are nothing radical.
    For all those who will try to make 2008 a litmus test on abortion, gay rights, or gun control, you should be ashamed. Every American needs to realize that the major issues in '08 are as follows: Stabilizing Iraq, maintaining our global fight to counter radical Islam (including keeping a close eye on Iran), restoring a sense of competence, reliability, and trust in the White House, and continuing to add to our growing economy. America is in desperate need of the leadership that only Rudy can supply. Let us hope that we do not become blinded by the senseless mudslinging from those who want to make this election about values and not issues.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Into the Fire

     Just when you thought that things could not have gotten more complicated. Of course, with our luck, they most certainly have. Radical Islam has reared its ugly head once again, now in the form of the twisted regime in Iran. With the capture and detainment of 15 British soldiers in the Persian Gulf and the increasingly bold stances taken by Tehran, it is time to look seriously at our position in the Middle East. First, let us come to a few reasonable conclusions. Is it a coincidence that Iran makes a brash move in violation of international law at the same time the Democratic congress attempts to cut funds and demobilize Bush's war efforts? Do not fool yourself. Our enemy is emboldened by Pelosi's actions and failure in Iraq means that the terrorists will claim a historic victory. No doubt mistakes have been made, but Al-Qaeda and their supporters have stated and illustrated that Iraq is the central front of this war. 
    Iran would love to hold the British personnel as long as possible without consequence, let them free and pronounce that they can do as they please in the Gulf. It would be a travesty to let them get that far. The West must no longer travel the road of appeasement with brutal regimes such as Iran. We can not afford to let nations such as Russia or China call the shots in dealing with the Iranians. The Security Council must instill and maintain sanctions, while diplomats continue to push for the release of prisoners. Confrontation with Iran was inevitable and unavoidable. Success in the region depends upon our ability to diminish all forms of militant Islam as we possibly can. In the past these targets were limited to insurgents and Al-Qaeda fighters in Iraq and Afghanistan. It seems that Iran is now begging for a place beside their murderous friends in this epic struggle. Will anyone stand in their way?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Only Way to Win in '08

    Recent polls for the 2008 Presidential Election have former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani pulling ahead of John McCain for the Republican nomination. 36% of likely Republican primary voters favor Rudy, while only 20% would choose McCain. Giuliani also beats out Hillary and Obama in head-to-head matchups in the general election. Although it is early, Giuliani's leads have only risen in the last few months. 
    Obviously, Giuliani's main hurdle will be getting past the religious-right and other social conservatives in the primaries. His history of support for gay-rights and pro-choice measures conflict with the traditional stands of ultra-Republicans who vote in primaries. Lucky for him (and us), the social right has been largely silenced since Iraq and the War on Terror have taken center stage. The group has failed to put up any viable candidate for '08 and it seems almost too late to do so now. Not to say that issues such as abortion and gay marriage are not vital to the American debate, but, at the present time, pressing foreign affairs call us abroad. No man has the expertise, determination, or leadership to guide America through these perilous times more than Giuliani. 
    Republicans who cannot look past Giuliani's social stands fail to recognize the importance of party unity. If Republicans from the heartland (i.e. old Southern conservatives, religious Republicans, anti-abortion activists) try to make this election about gay marriage or abortion, they have no shot. If they follow the path of ultra-conservatives in Sam Brownback (Kansas) or former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, they will lose. Republicans must run on their strength: national defense. As Lincoln once noted, a house divided shall not stand. Republicans might as well lay out the White House carpet for Hillary or Obama if they stray from the party's true ideals in '08. Vote for fiscal responsibility, vote for victory abroad, vote for leadership. Putting it simply, vote for Giuliani.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (1) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

20 Reasons to Vote Rudy

1. Giuliani's overall moderate views would be a refreshing change
2. Morally against abortion
3. Recognizes that abortion cannot be outlawed, but that there should be restrictions and exceptions in place
4. Marriage= A man and a woman
5. A pro civil union stance: fair/progressive/benefits for partners
6. Moves away from controversial social issues (not afraid to confront pressing matters)
7. Lower taxes (established record lows as mayor of New York)
8. Importance of fiscal responsibility (critical look at all governmental agencies and their effectiveness)
9. Cut welfare and improve unemployment (NYC's welfare rolls were cut in half, as poverty and homelessness were reduced)
10. Focus on personal responsibility and hard work
11. Confronts issues head on
12. Honest/blunt/as matter of fact personality (something that is lacking in Washington)
13. Held hands-on and very lively media sessions as mayor... would serve as a responsive and on-task executive
14. The definition of a true leader: A bigger-than-life persona in time of national unease and war... a very Churchillian-type of leadership
15. A personable and gifted speaker
16. Reassuring stature and character
17. Tough on crime: as a prosecutor he fought and defeated the mafia... as mayor he revitalized a liberal-infested city that was nearly ungovernable and almost unlivable
18. 1993 (Giuliani elected): 1,960 murders
2001 (Giuliani's term expires): 640 murders
66% decrease
19. Carried out the "Broken Window Theory" for policing: crackdown on small crimes and this will reduce violent crimes. In many cases, the same people who jumped the turnstile at the subway station were the ones with illegal firearms
20. The 9/11 image- Rudolph Giuliani was there when this global war began. He witnessed first hand the terror and bloodshed at Ground Zero. In essence, his will and determination to recover his city and stand up defiantly to the terrorists was our first victory. Therefore, no one but Rudy has the know-how and inspirational spirit to make the crucial decisions in this global struggle.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Perils of Appeasement

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
- Winston Churchill

    At the Munich Conference in 1938, Adolf Hilter promised Western Europe that he wanted nothing more than Czechslovakia and the Rhineland. Bowing to his every wish, Britain's Prime Minister Neville Chamberlin set Europe towards all out war. In the years that followed, Hitler advanced to Poland, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and France. Millions were dead and countless lives were destroyed as the western democracies watched on the sideline. Only one man had the will and determination to face the Third Reich with his country on the brink of disaster: Winston Churchill.
    In today's global struggle against radical Islamists and neo-totalitarian regimes (i.e. China, Venezuela, Sudan, North Korea, Russia) the West is in dire need of another Churchill. Instead, we have a Congress that has essentially given U.S. troops in Iraq a vote of no confidence and a Security Council that has no control of flagrant violations by Iran. Could you imagine being an American soldier in the field, risking your life for your homeland and the hope of a democratic Iraq while, back home, politicians are stepping in to dictate your military operations? It is as if Congress had disapproved of Eisenhower's troop levels and battleship deployments during the D-Day invasion of France. Abandoning the Middle East and the fight against terrorism and radical Islam would only embolden our enemies. Make no mistake, the West has the will and stomach for our mission, but we should never forget the perils of turning a blind eye towards evil.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »