Giuliani exits race, endorses McCain - Yahoo! News

Giuliani exits race, endorses McCain - Yahoo! News

I already discussed this last night but again, it is official - Rudy is out of the race and has thrown his support to McCain. I have heard Rush Limbaugh many times say that if McCain gets the nomination, the Republican Party will be "destroyed" quoted most recently on CBS News here.

In thinking about that, I almost think that no matter who the nominee, the Republican Party will be changed. Giuliani had his merits but also was not certainly the most conservative candidate (pro-choice, did not support amendment to define and protect marriage, for civil unions, supported the ban on assault weapons). Certainly the current President has been no conservative and I believe that no matter who the nominee and eventual next President, the Government will be less conservative. The scary part is the question "will the country follow?" I hope not as getting back from the "Road to Serfdom" which seems to be the current bill of goods being sold to the American people is a prescription for disaster.

Oh and John Edwards - good riddance. I could never take that snake oil salesman seriously. Here is a guy worth millions preaching to us about our carbon footprint, the downtrodden and the other America that is made up of people unlike him and how we need to sacrifice more. I didn't buy it in 2004 and don't buy it now.

OS

Guiliani to exit...?

I posted in a recent entry here that I thought Giuliani would win the Republican Nomination and that McCain would withdraw. Well in reading the stories on the results of the Florida primary, it looks like I got it wrong. The AP is reporting that:

Sen. John McCain won a breakthrough triumph in the Florida primary Tuesday night, gaining the upper hand in the battle for the Republican presidential nomination ahead of next week's contests across 21 states and lining up a quick endorsement from soon-to-be dropout Rudy Giuliani.

Giuliani ran third, his best showing of the campaign but not nearly good enough for the one-time front-runner who decided to make his last stand in a state that is home to tens of thousands of transplanted New Yorkers.

In remarks to supporters in Orlando, the former New York mayor referred to his candidacy repeatedly in the past tense—as though it were over. "We'll stay involved and together we'll make sure that we'll do everything we can to hand our nation off to the next generation better than it was before," he said.

So it looks like Rudy is out - which is surprising given his rise in the early polls and what I considered to be some positive name recognition and experience. So what does this bode for the Romney/McCain race? I guess we will see since McCain won all of Florida's delegates, he is now in the lead over Romney. Next Tuesday is "Super Tuesday" when 21 states hold primaries and of course should give a pretty clear indication as to where the nomination is heading. What makes this more interesting is the lineup of talk show hosts already against McCain. Again to quote an AP Story:

Talk radio pioneer Rush Limbaugh said that if McCain or Mike Huckabee are nominated, "it's going to destroy the Republican Party." Mark Levin calls the senator "John McLame." On Monday, Laura Ingraham said she was "concerned about the mental stability of the McCain campaign" and had cuckoo-clock sound effects accompany his words.

I have also heard Sean Hannity be less than enthused with a McCain nomination but many seemed to have no problem with Giuliani who appeared to be socially moderate at his best. No matter, we wish Mayor Giuliani well and will see what next Tuesday brings the country.

Do I need to say that McCain, Romney or Huckabee would be a better choice than Hillary?

OS

What the hell happened to WTTT (Boston Conservative Talk)?

I repeat - what the hell happened to WTTT (1150 AM on the radio dial) which was billed as Boston's Conservative Talk (on the web at http://www.talk1150.com/). Now on the website is only a Cross and an announcement that Radio Luz is coming. Doe s that mean that Dennis Prager, Sean Hannity, Bill Bennett, Dr. Laura, Michael Medved are off the Boston airwaves. I really enjoyed Bennett's show in the morning (http://bennettmornings.com/) and Dennis Prager (http://dennisprager.townhall.com/) in the afternoon and am shocked that the station seems to be broadcasting Spanish Christian music (not that I have a problem with that - but I do miss the talk shows). Rush is on WRKO but the other local radio is boring (I guess there is always Jay Severin).

There is a short mention of this on the Save WRKO website but no real explanation. I also understand the topic was discussed on Free Republic. What is the deal?? This is an unfortunate happening for Boston Radio and indicative of the closed mind of this general area. I say - "what about diversity of thought?" Not apparently in the People's Republic of Massachusetts.

OS

The NY Times announces its picks.

Well no surprise here that the NY Times has announced its support for Hillary. The endorsement stated (in part):

Her ideas, her comeback in New Hampshire and strong showing in Nevada, her new openness to explaining herself and not just her programs, and her abiding, powerful intellect show she is fully capable of doing just that. She is the best choice for the Democratic Party as it tries to regain the White House.

Isn't that sweet? This actually is expected as the Times endorsed Clinton when she was running for the Senate in NY in 2000 (Yep - Hillary that life long New Yorker) so I don't think there is any real news here. Again - no surprise.

But the NY Times also endorsed John McCain (similar to the Boston Globe already discussed in this space before). As I stated previously "These endorsements are not a good thing for McCain who is a war hero and has done so much for his country...He has fought many a good fight but he is not the standard bearer the Republican Party needs for 2008 and beyond." It is alos nice to note that while Hillary got a 2 page endorsement, McCain only garnered one page and most of the endorsement was explaining how bad the other 3 front runners for the Republican party are. The NY Times notes that McCain is not perfect though - "We have shuddered at Mr. McCain’s occasional, tactical pander to the right because he has demonstrated that he has the character to stand on principle." Note that there is no problem with Clinton pandering to the Left though but heaven forbid those right wingers get pandered to. The endorsement continues:

Still, there is a choice to be made, and it is an easy one. Senator John McCain of Arizona is the only Republican who promises to end the George Bush style of governing from and on behalf of a small, angry fringe. With a record of working across the aisle to develop sound bipartisan legislation, he would offer a choice to a broader range of Americans than the rest of the Republican field.

The Times does not give Clinton any points for "bipartisan" leanings (although it is noted when the Times discusses Obama) because the Times does not care about Democrats working across the aisle on bipartisan legislation. They only care about more progressive (i.e liberal) issues being passed into law and more Government and Government Dependency and of course higher taxes, Government run day care and an end to the Iraq war. And this is the paper that is siding with McCain? This sounds like campaign fodder for Romney to use rather than something that should be a testament to McCain.

What is interesting is this endorsement in a way reveals what is happening in the Republican Party which began with George H.W. Bush. The Party began to splinter into a number of wings and has never truly recovered from what I would call the Conservative Coalition that supported Reagan (and George H.W. Bush). Where do the conservatives like Pat Buchanan sit now that the Republican party has veered off into a strange and foreign kind of conservatism that is not familar and moreover appears to be not effective in uniting the party that seems to be in disarray.

John McCain is not supported here although his service is admired. What is more interesting is what this election and its standard bearer will say about the Republican Party in 2008 and beyond. I would probably endorse anyone that the NY Times is against as a general rule (although I am not a Republican). I wonder how McCain will play this endorsement if at all.

OS

Church and State again!!!

Ok after my last brillant post on the hypocrisy of the left and the separation of Church and State thing (and my commentary on how the left gives a blind eye to the left's use of the pulpit while excoriating the Right) I see this story again, from Yahoo News via the AP.

Barack Obama called Sunday for unity to overcome the country's problems and acknowledged that "none of our hands are clean" when it comes to healing divisions...Obama took to the pulpit at Martin Luther King Jr.'s Ebenezer Baptist Church on the eve of the federal holiday marking the civil rights hero's birth 79 years ago. He based his speech on King's quote that "Unity is the great need of the hour."

Why the hubbub over Mitt Romney's mormonism and nothing about the use of the pulpit to push (quite frankly) a political message. I wonder if the Republican's were invited to speak as well.

Unity is not our greatest need and diversity is not our greatest strength. I wish people would stop saying that (usually it is said to make everyone feel good). Our greatest strength is our belief in self reliance and the dream that in this country an individual can access all that American has to offer if he or she is willing to work hard and persevere. We live in the freest nation in the world with the best form of government (representative republic) and with all our flaws we still have such great bounty and promise in this country (regardless of how you feel about President Bush). Sure it would be nice to be united say in the War, but if the next President brings the troops home, how do you think all those Americans that bore sacrifices to support the war will feel? Unity is a tall order (but I am sorry - I don't believe the Left wants unity - unless you agree with them that is).

I have to catch up on the news and see how the heck McCain won in South Carolina. I am also hearing that finishing so badly in SC could be the end of Huckabee. Stay tuned as these are the times that will continue to try our souls.

Outspoken Roman.

Patriots are going to the Super Bowl again!

Update - in overtime the NY Giants beat the Green Bay Packers 23-20 with a 47 yard field goal by Lawrence Tynes so my prediction was wrong. But I still believe the outcome will be the same - Patriots victory!

Been away and watching football for a bit (and of course following politics like most everyone else has). All the fans watching the game can admit that it sure was not their best game but the Patriots pulled it out, beating the San Diego Chargers 21 - 12, holding the Chargers to no touchdowns (see Yahoo News story here). The Patriots are now heading to their 4th Super Bowl appearance. Very sweet.

Ok since this blog has been created the Red Sox and now the Patriots are Champions (by the way, I predict the Green Bay Packers will make it to the Super Bowl and then lose to the Patriots). Connection?

Go Patriots!!!

What about separation of Church and State?

Drugs, race raised in Clinton-Obama fight - CNN.com

I have been following the story as noted by CNN of the ongoing and very entertaining feud between the Obama and Clinton camps. I know that there is a lot of vitriol on the right against Clinton but have an opinion that Obama is actually more "liberal" than Hillary and I am actually not sure which one is worse for our country as I just don't have the faith in progressive politics that some of my friends do (and I actually have a disdain/contempt for most (if not all) of progressive solutions).

But the story is actually interesting in another sense. I have already blogged about the "race" race on the Democratic side (see "Is Obama black enough?" where I discuss this idea that blacks would be voting for Obama based on race alone. The CNN story notes that:

Black Entertainment Television founder Bob Johnson has waded into the Democratic presidential race on behalf of Sen. Hillary Clinton, leveling what appeared to be a criticism of Sen. Barack Obama's admitted past drug use.
Johnson, a prominent Clinton supporter, made the remarks during an appearance Sunday at a church in South Carolina, the scene of a January 26 primary with a large share of African-American voters.

Did you get that? Bob Johnson made the remarks at a church in South Carolina? Politics and the pulpit? I thought we had separation of Church and State according to the progressive left? So I went to Americans United for for Separation of Church and State and looked to see if there was any outcry - and surprise - I didn't see anything about this. So I checked into the FAQ of Americans United and it seemed that based on their mission statement (Americans United (AU) is a nonpartisan organization dedicated to preserving the constitutional principle of church-state separation as the only way to ensure religious freedom for all Americans.) I would think that they would be mobilizing against this incursion into religious freedom. But it was in reviewing the issues page that I found something very interesting. One of their main bullets on their "First Freedom First Petition" states "Political candidates should not be endorsed or opposed by houses of worship". How does one rectify this position with the CNN story noted above? I think I can explain. Another bullet on their "First Freedom First Petition" notes that "Every American should have the right to make personal decisions -- about family life, reproductive health, end of life care and other matters of personal conscience." Sounds pretty in line with progressive politics. Further the executive director of Americans United, a Mr. Barry Lynn has written a book called "Piety and Politics: The Right Wing Assault on Religious Freedom". What a hoot!! The Right Wing in my opinion is the ensurer of religious freedom which includes the freedom to have a Nativity scene or a Christmas Tree or any of the other outright religious expressions most Americans want preserved. If this guy has a problem with the right wing with no concern on the outright assault that the left is waging on religion, then he has truly missed the boat and is with all due respect, basically another flack for the left who sees the right as the great threat to liberty while allowing/giving the left free reign to continue its minimizing of the moral tenets of this country.

Memo to Barry Lynn. In your "Our Issues" page your group notes that it is against "Church Politicking" and notes:

As tax-exempt entities, houses of worship may not intervene in partisan politics by endorsing or opposing candidates. Pulpit-based electioneering not only violates federal law, many believe it corrupts the true mission of our faith communities.

Your group may want to give Bob Johnson or the Clinton camp a call and straighten them out.

Outspoken Roman

Pregnant Teens want Maternity Leave.

Update - Full Denver Post story here.

If I were John Stossel, I would call this post "Give Me A Break!". Fox News is reporting a story that has this headline:"Pregnant High School Students in Denver Ask for Maternity Leave". I of course believe that this is not unexpected as this society has decided that no one should be penalized for making bad choices (like not engaging in sex until the couple is ready to deal with any consequences including pregnancy). Case in point the following quote from the Fox News story:

Two of the school's counselors told the school board last month that the current policy is unfair and inconsiderate..."My initial reaction is if we are punishing girls like that, that is unacceptable," Nicole Head, one of the counselors who brought the matter to the school board last month, told The Post. "We've got to do something."

Actually we do need to do something. We need to explain to children that they should keep their clothes on, legs closed, pants unzipped, etc and explain that society cannot continually pay the price for an individual's bad choices. I know this sounds harsh but change is harsh and "forcing" someone to experience the repercussions of their actions is harsh. Explaining to someone that there isn't a big beneficent government or sugar daddy that will pay for our personal mistakes is a good start in getting things to change. There are no shortages of flyers that inform children about how to put a condom on a banana and why being gay is normal and how crappy the United States was to the American Indians and how President Bush is a fascist so I find it hard to believe that there can't be a few pamphlets given to students to show how far behind the curve having a baby when you are teenager (out of wedlock) puts you.

Stay tuned - Government Day Care is next on the requested list as well as free health care and all the other goodies that most everyone else has to pay for by working as a member of a productive society. This is not meant to cast dispersions on the teenagers involved (and I applaud them for keeping their babies but I would rather see them give the babies up for adoption so they can be raised in more stable environments) but nothing will change until we as a society get back to adopting a sense of decorum and shame and control over the "if it feels good, do it" mentality. We cannot afford this road that we are on unless the end goal is to become serfs to the Government who hands out all our goodies that are mislabeled as "rights". Universal Health Care anyone?

The girls should unfortunately, work something out where they can remain in school while pregnant, work during off school hours or during the summer or something like that which will show that the society is supportive but requires the individuals to give something as well (weekends, sports, after school activities, etc.) and this should not be celebrated but given the support any sort of hardship is given. The new moms should continue their studies (tutors?) so they are not given a handout (maternity leave) but are forced to face the reality of their situation and finally the new mothers should be encouraged to continue their education and not rely on the Government dole as the Government cannot provide for everybody. Self Reliance, family and church support are the routes I would hope are followed, not someone pointing to the local, state and federal Governments demand services for choices that were (again unfortunately) of a personal nature.

I know that sounds cruel but I do not wish this girls and newborns any ill. Where else will change begin?

Outspoken Roman

Iowa Caucus news - Huck not worth a "Breaking News Alert"

Welcome to 2008. What a year it will be with Presidential Politics, release of movies such as the new Batman movie and my personal favorite the return of Indiana Jones as well as continued polarization of the country on national security issues and the war in Iraq. It is going to be a wild ride.

So after taking a week or so off to visit the family, I am looking at the Iowa results and it is Obama for the Dems and Huckabee for the Repubs. What I thought was shocking was Clinton's 3rd place finish as she had everything apparently going for her and all the clout and all the money and still could only muster a third place finish. I am sure as others have said that the spin will be that Iowa didn't really mean a lot (I will note that her husband Bill did not win in Iowa as well, losing to Tom Harkin). I still believe her loss is significant due to the established credentials she had already due to her husband and of course her time on the national stage as First Lady and as one of New York's senators. I have predicted in another space that Obama will be the nominee and I stand by that. Peggy Noonan writing online in the Wall Street Journal notes:

As for Sen. Obama, his victory is similarly huge. He won the five biggest counties in Iowa, from the center of the state to the South Dakota border. He carried the young in a tidal wave. He outpolled Mrs. Clinton among women.

He did it with a classy campaign, an unruffled manner, and an appeal on the stump that said every day, through the lines: Look at who I am and see me, the change that you desire is right here, move on with me and we will bring it forward together.

What as interesting was that everyone who subscribes to the Boston Globe's Breaking News Alerts got an alert around 9:42 PM last night stating "Barack Obama has won the Democratic caucuses in Iowa, according to the Associated Press and CNN." Huckabee's win didn't warrant a similar Breaking News Alert. I guess we know what the Globe feels is news and worthy of email alerts. But there is no bias there.

What to say about Huckabee? I don't know that much about him but he seems to come off as the every day guy who has a sensibility about him and a "down to earth" charm that Romney seems to lack. Where Romney comes off (rightfully so) as the CEO of a company, smooth and polished, Huckabee exudes charm that is not unlike Bill Clinton, folksy and humble. Again, to go back to Peggy Noonan's piece:

What we have learned about Mr. Huckabee the past few months is that he's an ace entertainer with a warm, witty and compelling persona. He won with no money and little formal organization, with an evangelical network, with a folksy manner, and with the best guileless pose in modern politics.

I have also noted that I believe Giuliani will take the nomination for the Repubs. Huckabee I believe will fade as will Thompson. I think McCain while taking a lot of maverick positions that the media as loved, has alienated the true base of the Republican party and will also withdraw from the race, although not as soon as I would like.

I look forward to my continued Boston Globe "Breaking News Alerts", especially the one that says "Hillary Clinton defeated". That will be a keeper.

Outspoken.Roman