Conservative Politics

2006-12-13T00:14:00.000-08:00

Rudy Giuliani - Hero, Time Person of the Year, Most Liberal Republican of all Time

Giuliani has made plenty of buzz about a possible run for the White House in 08. He is seen as the second strongest contender now behind John McCain. The former NYC mayor may have been a 9/11 hero and may be popular, but he shares none of the values of the party he represents. Here is where he stands on the important issues.

Abortion: pro-choice
Gay Rights: pro gay rights
Affirmative Action: supporter
Gun Control: Favors more gun control
Prayer in School: Against it

Social issue Scorecard: 0/5

The Liberal Party has been a supporter of Giuliani because of his views. When it comes to voting in the primaries people of course want electable candidates but choosing Giuliani in the primaries would be a complete compromise on the important issues that are important to conservatives. There are Republicans that are electable and have socially conservative views. Giuliani would be great on crime and against terrorism but would only be an aid in the left's onslaught of the family and morality.

2006-12-05T11:49:00.000-08:00

Who is Tom Vilsack?

Tom Vilsack is the first Democrat to officially throw a hat in the ring. If you have heard of him, you're probably a resident of Iowa, where Vilsack is Governor. If you haven't heard of him, you are in the majority. After checking out his campaign site, I was left in the dark as to where he stood on the issues, although I was informed on how to donate money to his campaign. After giving his campaign kickoff speech Vilsack unofficially became the millionth Democrat running for office that "hates Bush and the war." Since he isn't offering anything other than the broken record of Bush bashing offered by his party, he'll get squashed like a bug when the powerhouse candidates for the Democratic primaries enter the ring. We need candidates from both parties who run campaigns based on issues, not meaningless statements like "I'm better than the other guy." Vilsack will have an uphill battle when Hillary, Obama, and the other Democrats crowd the ring.

2006-12-03T23:02:00.000-08:00

Quit Abusing Those Terrorists and Give Them Your Money. Take a look at Jimmy Carter's newest idea, the "No Terrorist Left Behind Program."

Recently President Carter went on "Meet the Press" with Tim Russert to discuss his new book,"Palestine Peace Not Apartheid". Russert asked the former president what advice he would give President Bush if he were to ask for it. Here is his response:

OK. First of all, I think that the United States should stop their horrible abuse of the Palestinian people in a generic sense. I mean, all Palestinian people. Because they voted for Hamas candidates last January, we have cut off all aid to, to the Palestinian people, humanitarian aid and otherwise. We don’t let contributions from other nations go to the Palestinian people. They don’t have enough money to pay their, their teachers, their nurses, their policemen, their firemen, anybody on their public payroll, just because the Palestinian people voted for Hamas candidates. So I would stop that and let humanitarian aid go into Gaza and to the West Bank.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15936711/page/7/

Boy, that's some interesting advice. Let's take a look at what Carter is saying. America is horribly abusing Palestinians because we are not giving free handouts to a bunch of radical terrorists. Hamas is a group bent on the destruction of Israel. Palestinians have voted in these terrorists showing their support for the group that promotes suicide attacks and the destruction of Israel. Is this really a people deserving of hard earned American dollars? These same people were dancing in the streets like it was Mardi Gras on September 11 to celebrate the deaths of thousands of US civilians. (Check out this link to see them cheering in the streets: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=4030)

With all the money we're spending to fight the war on terror, should we really be cutting a check to terrorists? Do we have so few domestic problems and so much money here in America that we can afford to fund terrorism? When the hard working family man asks where his taxes are going, are we willing to say they're going to ease the suffering hard working terrorists? If these people want some slack they need to improve their manners and be better neighbors. They can start by quitting some bad habits such as suicide bombings, rocket attacks, and kidnappings. Until then they can be a pariah.

Our not rewarding these terrorists with money doesn't constitute "horrible abuse" as Jimmy Carter put it. Sure, we all want peace in the Middle East, but how do you negotiate when one side doesn't believe the other has a right to exist? You really can't until Palestinians make some fundamental changes. Until then, I think I have a better place to spend my buck than on a terrorist.

2006-11-28T12:02:00.000-08:00

Post Election GOP Frontrunners

In the wake of the '06 elections three major candidates have emerged as the Republican front runners. It seems that the showdown will be between McCain and Giuliani, the biggest names in the race. We also see Mitt Romney as a strong contender with a decent chance in the primaries because of his more conservative positions. Giuliani will have the hardest time winning the Republican primaries, due to his socially liberal ideology. Despite his hero status, a pro-choice, pro-gay rights, and pro-gun control candidate won't do well in the primaries. McCain doesn't have the most conservative reputation in Washington, but he is definitely further to the political right than Giuliani. So this question comes up: Do Republicans sacrifice their core values in a compromise for a more winnable candidate? If congress is controlled by Democrats it will clearly better to have a more conservative president who can block the radical legislation that might come through. If Republicans regain control it would also be better to have a more conservative who will actually put forth a conservative agenda. It is no wonder Republican candidates lost in the last elections with all their problems in Iraq, the massive spending, and the real lack of pushing anything conservative through. They had control of the both the executive and legislative branch and accomplished nothing. Why should Republicans be excited to vote for their candidates when they claim to represent Republican values, but deliver middle of the political road results. They did some things better than the democrats would have, such as Supreme Court nominations, but for the most part a centrist agenda has been the rule. What Republicans need in '08 is a real Republican, one who is adamantly pro-choice, someone who can lower taxes, and someone who can clean up the wasteful government spending.