In recent days, news about Rudolph Giuliani's affair in New York while mayor has been sad, but not surprising. To be fair, his actions do not seem illegal, just immoral. The former mayor of New York City is chalking the news up to a political hatchet job. Yet, he was concerned enough about this news to have his chief campaign advisor give Chris Wallace a phone call yesterday to justify the Mayor's actions. A little background may help shed some light on this issue.
Giuliani, as everyone now knows, was having an affair while the mayor of New York. It has been much publicized that he had his now wife, then girl friend, living in the Mayor's mansion with him. Only in New York, or DC when Clinton was President!
The heart of the current controversy is that Giuliani was expensing his security detail through "strange" organizations in the city government, while he went on his tryst to the Southamptons. It appears that what was suppose to happen was that the expenses for the security were supposed to go through the police office. The Mayor's office says that Giuliani paid for the expense through an American Express account. Why money was pulled from other areas of government to pay the American Express account is typical government bureaucracy. At the end of the fiscal year, agencies with left over money used this money to pay ahead on the account. Typical government practice, and legal. The question is not whether Giuliani broke the law, but whether what he did was in keeping with the practices of a good executive. Was it the right thing to do?
The answer is NO. We Republicans beat President Clinton over the head with having no morality for what he did in the White House. Can we accept a candidate who was doing worse? Again, NO! Conservative Republicans seem willing to forgive the Mayor for his past transgressions. He did in fact end up marrying Ms. Lane and it is easy to forgive people of transgressions. That is what we should as a people be all about, forgiveness. While there is little doubt of Rudy's leadership, this indiscretion does show a willingness to act above the rules of law and morality. I believe that this behavior by the Mayor is not in keeping with values of what I am looking for in a President. Running for political office is not just about what you will do, but what you have done. We must look at the full record, not just of accomplishments, but of everyday life decisions. How we behave at home reflects as much about us as how we behave at work. Just ask my wife!
Does Giuliani's life and political record live up to our values and standards as conservatives? I think not. What Giuliani did in New York is not morally or fiscally conservative. Funds being allocated to a security detail while the Mayor was having his tryst is the very definition of fiscal irresponsibility. Giuliani will alienate the base of the party, and further divide a country that is sorely in need of healing and unification.
So I ask, "Why do people think this guy is the only Republican candidate that can beat Hillary?" What real distinction from Clinton does he encompass? They're both from New York, they both are liberal on social issues, and they are both the "assumed" nominees from their respective parties. Don't Americans want a choice?
Here is my challenge: for people to stop assuming that these mediocre candidates are the next presidential candidates, and actually choose someone who reflects their values. As conservatives, we must vote for the candidate that best represents our ideology, and our party. This means someone who is both socially and fiscally conservative. Guiliani does not live up this standard. Only one candidate does:
MIKE HUCKABEE
Publius
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
YouTube Debate
Of course, I am biased, but I believe the winner of tonight's debate was Governor Mike Huckabee. He showed, yet again, that of all the GOP candidates, that he is the best debator, and the truest conservative. With this debate now over, I would like to address two things that I noticed about tonight's debate. First, how the candidates, specifically Huckabee, performed tonight. Second, some of CNN's post debate analysis of the debate and how the candidates performed.
First, how did the candidates perform? It was definitely an entertaining debate. Right from the start, the leaders, Romney, Guiliani, and Huckabee, began sparring with each other over the issue of immigration. While this initial round made for decidedly good TV, I must say that Romney looked desperate. As one of the front runners, it surprised me to see him act as though he were trailing. He took a couple of wild swings at Guiliani and Huckabee, but failed to corner either candidate. As the debate continued, Romney continued to look weak and flustered. He is a very polished candidate, but could not seem to answer simple questions simply and decisively. He even fumbled one answer about whether he believed in every word in the Bible. He gave a good response at the end of the debate, but even this answer seemed canned and more like a campaign button than a real response. Sorry Mitt, but after tonight's performance your poll numbers are sure to drop even farther.
Guiliani performed adequately, as we have all come to expect. Yet on three key conservative issues his flaws were exposed. On immigration, the initial question, Guiliani defended New York being a sanctuary city by playing a typical political card. New York he said was not a real sanctuary city, but only a sanctuary city in three ways. For a second I wasn't sure if I was listening to Guiliani or Bill Clinton, the master of verbal political jujitsu. I have no idea where he stands on immigration, but that was slick the way he turned the issue against Romney. On abortion he said he was for overturning Roe v. Wade and giving the decision back to the states. No wait, that's not it. What he said was that if the courts did overturn Roe then the laws governing abortions would revert to the states. Thanks for the Con law lesson Rudy, I was unsure what would happen if Roe were reversed. I believe the question was whether he would support a federal law banning abortion, he would not, and whether he would fight to overturn Roe by nominating conservative justices. He again showed his prowess by dodging this conservative land mine. On gun control, well I have no idea what he would actual do, except that he does believe people have the right to bear arms. Yet, he seemed to imply that the government has a right to control the right to bear arms. Rudy did not get himself into any trouble like Romney did, but he did open the door for criticism.
McCain had an overall strong and consistent performance. He has never floundered on any of his positions, and did not flounder tonight. For the most part, he stayed above the fray, only once attacking Ron Paul, to many cheers and boos, on the Iraq issue. McCain has been a stalwart of old time politics, never bending or yielding on issues. Yet he looked tired and worn out. This is not to disrespect McCain, who has become a rock for veterans and active duty military people, but he looked old. McCain is to be commended for his defense of the military and Iraq, but it appears as though his time has past.
Thompson looked yet again like he woke up this morning and wondered why he was running for President. He had a few good lines, but seemed unable to answer questions directly. Which three programs would you cut Fred? And why when you have 30 seconds of free advertising would your people run an attack ad?
Mike Huckabee, in my opinion, won the night. Its hard to pronounce a winner when candidates are only given a very few questions, and so little time to answer. He defended his immigration policy as Governor by saying that we have never been a country to punish children for what their parents have done. He gave an eloquent answer to the question of the Bible, as I would hope a theologian would. He said he would cut the IRS and revamp Homeland Security to cut runaway government spending. And at the end, my favorite line, he said he would send Hillary Clinton on a mission to Mars. He was articulate and funny, and seemed once again to inspire rather than divide. In all, I believe the night belonged to Mike Huckabee.
I did not get a chance to watch all of CNN's post debate analysis, and that was probably a blessing. I must say that Anderson Cooper and CNN did a good job. The debate was fair and balanced, to steal a line from Fox news. I would have liked to see more detailed questions and some more follow up questions, but given the number of candidates and time, this seemed impossible. In the post debate coverage everyone seemed to agree that Romney did poorly and Guiliani did well. They also agreed that Govenor Huckabee had a good night. Yet they said that he was not giving adequate answers and not answering tough questions. He can only answer what he is asked. When Huckabee says that he would like to go to the "fair" tax plan and do away with the IRS, I believe he is serious. As to this notion that the Govenor would make a good running mate, I agree, but before we get to that point, lets have the primaries first. For a candidate who is leading in Iowa and gaining in other states, he is still not being considered seriously. This is sad and tragic. I know how much the media would like to see a Guiliani v. Clinton election, but here's a thought: Lets let the American people decide first. In an era where people are picking politicians only because they can win, lets trying picking one because we believe in their message. For me that person is Mike Huckabee, and the message is one of Hope.
Publius
First, how did the candidates perform? It was definitely an entertaining debate. Right from the start, the leaders, Romney, Guiliani, and Huckabee, began sparring with each other over the issue of immigration. While this initial round made for decidedly good TV, I must say that Romney looked desperate. As one of the front runners, it surprised me to see him act as though he were trailing. He took a couple of wild swings at Guiliani and Huckabee, but failed to corner either candidate. As the debate continued, Romney continued to look weak and flustered. He is a very polished candidate, but could not seem to answer simple questions simply and decisively. He even fumbled one answer about whether he believed in every word in the Bible. He gave a good response at the end of the debate, but even this answer seemed canned and more like a campaign button than a real response. Sorry Mitt, but after tonight's performance your poll numbers are sure to drop even farther.
Guiliani performed adequately, as we have all come to expect. Yet on three key conservative issues his flaws were exposed. On immigration, the initial question, Guiliani defended New York being a sanctuary city by playing a typical political card. New York he said was not a real sanctuary city, but only a sanctuary city in three ways. For a second I wasn't sure if I was listening to Guiliani or Bill Clinton, the master of verbal political jujitsu. I have no idea where he stands on immigration, but that was slick the way he turned the issue against Romney. On abortion he said he was for overturning Roe v. Wade and giving the decision back to the states. No wait, that's not it. What he said was that if the courts did overturn Roe then the laws governing abortions would revert to the states. Thanks for the Con law lesson Rudy, I was unsure what would happen if Roe were reversed. I believe the question was whether he would support a federal law banning abortion, he would not, and whether he would fight to overturn Roe by nominating conservative justices. He again showed his prowess by dodging this conservative land mine. On gun control, well I have no idea what he would actual do, except that he does believe people have the right to bear arms. Yet, he seemed to imply that the government has a right to control the right to bear arms. Rudy did not get himself into any trouble like Romney did, but he did open the door for criticism.
McCain had an overall strong and consistent performance. He has never floundered on any of his positions, and did not flounder tonight. For the most part, he stayed above the fray, only once attacking Ron Paul, to many cheers and boos, on the Iraq issue. McCain has been a stalwart of old time politics, never bending or yielding on issues. Yet he looked tired and worn out. This is not to disrespect McCain, who has become a rock for veterans and active duty military people, but he looked old. McCain is to be commended for his defense of the military and Iraq, but it appears as though his time has past.
Thompson looked yet again like he woke up this morning and wondered why he was running for President. He had a few good lines, but seemed unable to answer questions directly. Which three programs would you cut Fred? And why when you have 30 seconds of free advertising would your people run an attack ad?
Mike Huckabee, in my opinion, won the night. Its hard to pronounce a winner when candidates are only given a very few questions, and so little time to answer. He defended his immigration policy as Governor by saying that we have never been a country to punish children for what their parents have done. He gave an eloquent answer to the question of the Bible, as I would hope a theologian would. He said he would cut the IRS and revamp Homeland Security to cut runaway government spending. And at the end, my favorite line, he said he would send Hillary Clinton on a mission to Mars. He was articulate and funny, and seemed once again to inspire rather than divide. In all, I believe the night belonged to Mike Huckabee.
I did not get a chance to watch all of CNN's post debate analysis, and that was probably a blessing. I must say that Anderson Cooper and CNN did a good job. The debate was fair and balanced, to steal a line from Fox news. I would have liked to see more detailed questions and some more follow up questions, but given the number of candidates and time, this seemed impossible. In the post debate coverage everyone seemed to agree that Romney did poorly and Guiliani did well. They also agreed that Govenor Huckabee had a good night. Yet they said that he was not giving adequate answers and not answering tough questions. He can only answer what he is asked. When Huckabee says that he would like to go to the "fair" tax plan and do away with the IRS, I believe he is serious. As to this notion that the Govenor would make a good running mate, I agree, but before we get to that point, lets have the primaries first. For a candidate who is leading in Iowa and gaining in other states, he is still not being considered seriously. This is sad and tragic. I know how much the media would like to see a Guiliani v. Clinton election, but here's a thought: Lets let the American people decide first. In an era where people are picking politicians only because they can win, lets trying picking one because we believe in their message. For me that person is Mike Huckabee, and the message is one of Hope.
Publius
Monday, November 26, 2007
People Of North West Florida
This is the first post in what I hope will become many. The purpose of the website and this blog is to try and garner interest here in the Panhandle of Florida for the Presidential campaign of Mike Huckabee. There are many candidates in the primary this, but I am suprised that in conservative Northwest Florida and Alabama, Mike Huckabee has not gained more of a following. The reason for this, I believe, is because people do not yet know who Mike Huckabee is. It is with this intention that over the next several weeks and months that I hope to introduce this marvelous candidate to the areas voters. I firmly believe that it is in this area that the base of the party resides and that with the voters of the Northwest Florida and Alabama, Mike Huckabee will win the nomination and the Presidency. This project is in its infancy, and I am very much a computer novice, so bear with, and feel free to volunteer any help.
Steve
Steve
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
