Giuliani’s Conservative Problem

So in this post, I’m going to lay out my thoughts concerning Mayor Giuliani. I figure he’s a safer candidate to criticize than Ron Paul considering that Ron Paul’s supporters would take away my habeas corpus while at the same time voting for him to restore it to me. And yes, I’m being facetious.

Before 9/11, I always thought of Giuliani as a dimly lit Republican light in the barren liberal wasteland that is New York City (nothing against New Yorkers other than the fact that it’s a fairly liberal area on the whole). But my opinion of Mayor Giuliani changed after 9/11. I was glad that he was there for the people of New York in such a trying time. Despite some of the criticism he has received, I believe he did a fine job of handling such a tragedy.

So he’s got his handling of 9/11 going for him. The guy’s a proven leader. He was generally fiscally conservative from what I understand and he did a lot to lower the crime rate in NYC. And I have to give him props for his cameo in “Anger Management.”

Now for the mud-slinging and criticism. He’s on his third marriage partially due to some extramarital relations. So he’s pratically lower than Bill Clinton on the moral totem pole. But that’s his personal business, let’s not get nasty. His abortion views are a bit troubling to social conservatives. He’s pro-choice. And from what we saw in the first GOP debate, he’s somewhat “either or” on the appealing of Roe v. Wade. Fair enough, but I’d appreciate him taking a moral stance one way or another.

His pro-gay stance is a bit dismal for social conservatives, but whatever. The gun control thing is somewhat of a biggie though. Have we had a pro-gun control Republican presidential candidate in the past 27 years? I understand that George H.W. Bush failed to shine somewhat there, but I think Rudy’s a bit more liberal in that department. If you write off the NRA, you lose a very important sector of your conservative constituency.

So Rudy’s moderate-to-liberal socially. I think that’s honest and fair. He’s fiscally conservative, which is always a plus. He seems to have a good head on his shoulders regarding defense for the War on Terror. He definitely earned street cred in his verbal sparring with Ron Paul.

In Rudy’s defense, I urge you to look at his Twelve Commitments. They are shades of Gingrich’s 1994 “Contract with America.” It’s quite conservative, but I’m not sure his record backs them up all that well.

When I choose a candidate, all the stars have to align. They have to be socially conservative, whereas Rudy generally is not. Little things like stances on abortion and gay marriage are big for social conservatives like myself. They have to be fiscally conservative, which Rudy basically is. I want lower, fairer taxes and a well-run, non-bureaucratic smaller government. I need my candidate to be anti-gun control, at least within reason. I’m not sure Rudy can give me all those things.

But an important and often-overlooked aspect of a candidate is that gravitas. That “it factor” that really makes a candidate seem “presidential.” I think Rudy’s got that to a certain degree. He’s got personality. He’s a likable individual. So he does have that going for him.

Do you know why I believe that many Republicans, even conservative Republicans are in Rudy’s corner? Because they believe he’s the most winnable. He’s “America’s Mayor.” Republicans are willing to sacrifice certain portions of our platform if we can just make sure that Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama is not in the White House. And I think that’s dangerous. I think it sends a mixed signal to America when our Presidential candidate, our best foot forward, is not in harmony with our own platform. I think it shows a lack of resolve and dedication to our principles.

But in conclusion, I like Rudy Giuliani. He’s a proven leader and I really believe he’d make a good President. However, I won’t vote for him in the primary. You see, I see primaries as a time when you can really focus on the specific issues and select the actual individual you want to represent your party. But if 2008 rolls around and Giuliani is the nominee, I’ll most likely end up voting for him…with a certain degree of reluctance.

Why Ron Paul can’t/won’t win in 2008, Part Two

Due to the large response of my first post, I felt I had to address the issue a bit further. First of all, I apologize and stand corrected that Ron Paul is a “non-interventionist” and not an “isolationist.” The two are quite similar, though different to a certain degree when it comes to trade. Please understand that I have made no intentional attempts to lie or misrepresent Ron Paul or his campaign.

Let me just say that I’m not opposing Ron Paul on all the issues he stands for. I think he’s got some excellent positions that I wish more Americans would adopt. I believe I voiced that in my previous post, however I wanted to reiterate.

But in regards to the non-interventionist/isolationist issue, I must point out the danger of non-interventionist policy. If we are to conduct free trade with nations all over the world, it would stand to reason that we would form some type of relationships with such countries. That having been said, are we to stand idly by if one of our allies is attacked? After all, we weren’t the ones that were attacked. That kind of ideology is what helped Hitler gain more power prior to our involvement in World War II. If we had stood up to him early on, we could have helped eliminate things like the Holocaust and the attack on Pearl Harbor. To quote Edmund Burke, “all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”

Someone said that I have bought into the government’s “boogeyman” philosophy that Islamic terrorists are trying to harm Americans. Well I guess I am scared of that boogeyman, to be honest with you. The boogeyman that caused the deaths of innocent civilians on 9/11. Do you not remember that event? Only about six years have passed and we’re already writing off Islamic terrorism as a “boogeyman?” And if you’re going to say that our government directly caused it, then forget this whole discussion because there’s no way our “shadow government” will allow Ron Paul to be elected and this conversation is irrelevant.

If Ron Paul has no connection whatsoever to 9/11 conspiracy theorists, then why are they so interested in him? Has he denounced these theorists or their theories? If so, please let me know.

Let’s get back to the heart of the matter. Ron Paul cannot win this election for several reasons. He’s got the wrong philosophy for dealing with terror, his policies (right or wrong) make most Americans nervous, and as a result, he won’t be able to connect with the American people. We have to face the fact that even though Ron Paul may be right on several of the issues he stands for, he is not electable and he will not win.

I will say that I appreciate everyone’s comments, as harsh or personal as they might have been. It’s always good to have an honest but healthy discussion of the issues at hand.

Now for all those who decided to get nasty in their comments, let me list the candidates I think have a better shot of winning than Ron Paul: Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, Mike Huckabee, and Sam Brownback. On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton, Barrack Obama, John Edwards, Al Gore (even though he’s not running), and Mike Gravel.

And to all you kind people who tried to correct me nicely, let me say this: if Ron Paul wins the nomination of the Republican party, I will make an apology on this blog. I promise.I’m still debating on whether or not I will say “I told you so,” when he doesn’t win this nomination and the election.

Why Ron Paul can’t/won’t win in 2008.

I’ve mentioned Ron Paul before in my previous entries, as you may know. But I’ve noticed that some of my friends are taking an interest in “Congressman No.” And why not? He’s a guy that seems to have strong convictions about the Constitution and believes in small government. What’s not to like? Is Ron Paul right for this country? If not, is it his fault or America’s?

What you may or may not know about Ron Paul is that he is a libertarian, a party which holds some Republican stances but with relative indifference to social issues. In fact, Dr. Paul actually ran for President several years ago on the Libertarian ticket. Evidentally, he’s got some type of political tendencies or else he wouldn’t have “defected” to the Republican party. However, he has been quite successful running as a Republican in his district in Texas.

Enter his interest in the national arena. Congressman Paul has historically voted No for most of the legislation in Washington that has come his way, deeming most of it “unconstitutional.” And who is to say that he’s wrong? Our founding fathers could have never conceived of some of the legislation that has passed in recent times (Civil Rights Amendment, Voting Rights, etc.). Let’s face it, some of our founding fathers never intended for anyone other than white male landowners to remain in power. But that’s another matter altogether.

No one can dispute Paul’s constitutional zeal. And there’s nothing wrong with that. In fact, I think America needs more people like Ron Paul championing the cause of constitutional values. But that’s just it. There aren’t. Even though Ron Paul may have some respectable support in his campaign, the fact remains that America is not prepared for someone like him to be President.

It’s hard to sell Americans on cutting major departments like the Department of Education, Dept of Transportation, the EPA, and things like that. For all we know, he may eliminate the CIA and the Pentagon! Furthermore, he seems to be a staunch isolationist. As seen in the second Republican debate (I think that’s when it was), he believes that America is in some way responsible for 9/11 because of our foreign policy. He does make valid points regarding our support of Israel and our involvement in Iraq. But he doesn’t stop there. He seems to think that we don’t have any business in the Middle East at all. That’s the problem. America can no longer afford to ignore that we face Islamic jihadists that hate us and want to eliminate us and our allies no matter where we are. Americans cannot and will not support someone that is weak on terrorism.

It seems almost cruel to point to the dwindling poll numbers that Paul faces nationwide and in key primary states. Besides, even my own favorite Mitt Romney is 3rd if not 4th in most national polls. But obviously, they cannot be ignored even as early as we are into the election process.

Let’s not forget his connections to 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Things like that make Americans a bit more uneasy than somebody being Mormon or getting divorced twice (I’ll let you draw the lines to the respective candidates).

Now for a recap. What will keep Ron Paul away from the Republican nomination, much less the White House? His lack of being a true Republican, his abolish-crazy intentions, his short-sighted views of government, his weakness on terrorism, and a lack of popularity. Now there’s nothing wrong with wanting small government and keeping to constitutional ideals, but we as a nation have progressed since our founding fathers formed this nation. We may not have always progressed in the right direction, but we have made progess nonetheless. And the status of this nation being what it is, we are not ready for a candidate like Ron Paul. That may not necessarily be his fault, but the fact remains and as a result, he will not win the Republican nomination nor the presidency in 2008.

The Growing Threat of Islamic….beliefs?

Ever heard of the Satanic Verses? When you hear that, chances are that you automatically think of something literally satanic or evil, possibly something written by Anton LeVay. However, I assure you that Satanic Verses is not anti-Christian. It is a novel by Salman Rushdie. The book references a series of known as the “satanic verses” that were thought by many to be part of the original Quran. Supposedly, these verses were written by Muhammad when he was under the influence of Shaitan (or Satan).

Sounds like a Islamic version of The Da Vinci Code, doesn’t it? Let’s look at some of the reactions to book from Islamic leaders. In 1989, the Ayatollah of Iran issued the following statement concerning the book, “I inform the proud Muslim people of the world that the author of the Satanic Verses book, which is against Islam, the Prophet and the Qur’an, and all those involved in its publication who are aware of its content are sentenced to death.” So, in breaking down that comment, Salman Rushdie, the publishing company, and everyone that is aware of the content of the book is sentenced to death. Wouldn’t that also include the Ayatollah for knowing what the book contained? Such ignorance!

Fast-forward to today when Rushdie is to be knighted by the Queen of England. Mohammed Ijaz ul-Haq, religious affairs minister of Iran, said “the West is accusing Muslims of extremism and terrorism. If someone exploded a bomb on his body he would be right to do so unless the British government apologizes and withdraws the ’sir’ title.” Darn that West! How dare they accuse Muslims of extremism and terrorism! I suppose exploding a bomb on Salman Rushdie’s body would not be extreme or an act of terrorism in the least.

But back to what I was saying about The Da Vinci Code, it’s obvious that Christians around the world condemned the book and everybody had their own way of refuting the concepts it was based on. However, did anyone threaten to explode a bomb on Dan Brown’s body? Not that I know of.

Of all the major religions in the world today, Islam is easily the most violent. Hardly a day goes by when we don’t hear the news of a suicide bomber or trouble in Gaza, Palestinians attacking Israel, etc. Men, women, and even children are commanded to be involved in jihad against the infidel. Who is the infidel? If you’re not a Muslim, it’s you! It’s me!

Now, I know there are moderate Muslims out there who live non-violent, decent, moral lives. But what I want to know is, when these “extreme Muslims” are spewing intolerance and hate speech, why aren’t they on the front lines condemning them?
Christianity is vastly different from Islam. The Bible never teaches us to attack those persecute us. Instead, we are taught to pray for those who persecute us. Christianity is about love and serving others. Islam is about loving Muslims and serving Muslims.

The West (i.e. everybody on the left side of the Middle East) must understand the danger of Islam. I fear that failing to do so could result in harm to the West. And we, as Christians all over the world should continue to try to reach Muslims with the truth of the gospel.

Romney vs. Thompson

With 3 debates under their belt, the 10 Republican Presidential candidates are ready to go for 2008. While current polling has established a top tier of Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Mitt Romney, many conservatives feel unimpressed with the selection of candidates as it stands. But wait, now these have disillusioned Republicans have put their hope behind Fred Thompson, former U.S. Senator from Tennessee and star of NBC’s “Law & Order.” Will he be the savior of conservativism that rallies the Republican base to a ‘08 victory? Maybe.

Here’s what we know about Fred Thompson: he’s a strong southern conservative with a voting record to back it up, born in the great state of Alabama, a former (possibly current) member of the church of Christ, and he’s a good actor from what I understand. He’s right on all the issues, he’s got a lot of support, he was born in Alabama and he’s at least affiliated with the church of Christ; what’s not to like?

Let’s take into account that it’s only June 2007 and the primaries don’t start until late January of 2008. I guess it never hurts to start early. But with 3 debates and a lot of politicking and polling behind them, the current 10 candidates have already got this machine running. What I’m saying is that I don’t have a problem with Fred Thompson per se. I have a problem with the circumstances he’s in by his late involvement in the race.

What irks me the most about this situation is that these “other conservatives” can’t be satisfied with nominating a strong conservative that’s already in the race (i.e. Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee). Republicans of all backgrounds must understand that if we are to win in 2008, we must unite behind a winnable candidate that reflects that values of our party. Rudy Giuliani does not meet that criteria. He is undeniably winnable, but he has values that are anything but conservative. John McCain is an old curmudgeon who has fought against the conservative base far too many times. He is not electable, if even likable. Therefore, we must find a conservative and electable candidate. Who will it be?

As you probably know if you’ve read my other blogs, I’ve thrown my support by Mitt Romney (as if that makes a difference in his campaign). I will continue to do because he has everything: conservative values, charisma, the “it factor,” gravitas, whatever you want to call it. He’s even got the presidential “look.” Fred Thompson has conservative values and definitely a certain degree of charisma which is required for him to be an actor, but does he have what it takes? I’m not so sure.

I’d be perfectly content with either Romney or Thompson as President. Quite frankly, I like Fred Thompson. But when it comes down to experience, and all the little factors that define what makes a successful Republican candidate, Romney remains my favorite as well as what I believe to be the best man for the job.