Fred Thompson was campaigning in Bristol, New Hampshire today. While making a stop at a local gun store, Fred had some critical words for Rudy Giuliani.
"(Giuliani) simply supported just about every gun control legislation that came down the pike. And I just disagree with him on that.... over the years and he's been very outspoken about it. Of course he's not outspoken about it anymore," Thompson told reporters with a smile. "It's a major differentiation. He relates everything to New York City ... Well, New York City is not emblematic of the rest of the country.
He does make an excellent point. While Rudy did manage a very large economy in New York City, and was an excellent mayor and strong leader during the post-9/11 recovery, New York is not representative of America as a whole. Rudy has also been very quiet about his past viewpoints on gun control, although I think that is partially due to Rudy knowing that gun control plays better to New York voters than it does to voters in places like the midwest and the deep south.
I don't quite have the problems with Rudy that other people do, and I actually like the man, but Rudy is only the 2nd best option for me.
That's because I support Fred Thompson.
Friday, November 23, 2007
Rasmussen Poll: Voter Mood Swinging Away From Left
According to Rasmussen Reports, the Democrats are still winning the "trust" war with voters. However, this trust is slipping away from them, and moving back towards the Republicans little-by-little.
On 10 major issues, Democrats are more trusted by Republicans on 7 of those issues (Gov't Ethics/Corruption, Economy, Health Care, Social Security, Education, Iraq, Immigration). Republicans are more trusted on the other 3 issues (National Security, Taxes, Abortion).
However, just a month ago, Democrats held an advantage on 9 out of 10 issues.
Also, the favorable margins Democrats once held in many areas are shrinking fast. For example, in September, Dems held a 16% advantage on the issue of Health Care. In October, it was a 21% advantage. This month, that advantage is down to 8%.
Dems went from an 8% advantage on the issue of abortion to a 1% disadvantage from October to November. They also went from a 13% advantage on the issue of Education to a 2% advantage.
Could it be that the Demcratic Party's wave has already crested and crashed? If this trend continues, it spells better hope and prospects for next year's elections.
On 10 major issues, Democrats are more trusted by Republicans on 7 of those issues (Gov't Ethics/Corruption, Economy, Health Care, Social Security, Education, Iraq, Immigration). Republicans are more trusted on the other 3 issues (National Security, Taxes, Abortion).
However, just a month ago, Democrats held an advantage on 9 out of 10 issues.
Also, the favorable margins Democrats once held in many areas are shrinking fast. For example, in September, Dems held a 16% advantage on the issue of Health Care. In October, it was a 21% advantage. This month, that advantage is down to 8%.
Dems went from an 8% advantage on the issue of abortion to a 1% disadvantage from October to November. They also went from a 13% advantage on the issue of Education to a 2% advantage.
Could it be that the Demcratic Party's wave has already crested and crashed? If this trend continues, it spells better hope and prospects for next year's elections.
Bill Clinton to 9/11 Conspiracy Theorist: "How Dare You"
Once in a while, Bill Clinton will do something or say something that makes me think that he's not a totally bad guy.
Like shutting down a heckler at a Hillary fundraiser who claimed 9/11 was an inside job and a fraud.
While I don't think he did enough with the supposedly vast amounts of information he had on Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, at least he won't let this extreme-left conspiracy BS stand...and for that, I do applaud him.
However, I hope that Clinton supporters do not attempt to use this as some kind of symbol that the Clintons are "tough on terror", because if Bill had been tough on terror in the first place, he would not have had a heckler to shut down...because 9/11 would not have happened.
Like shutting down a heckler at a Hillary fundraiser who claimed 9/11 was an inside job and a fraud.
While I don't think he did enough with the supposedly vast amounts of information he had on Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, at least he won't let this extreme-left conspiracy BS stand...and for that, I do applaud him.
However, I hope that Clinton supporters do not attempt to use this as some kind of symbol that the Clintons are "tough on terror", because if Bill had been tough on terror in the first place, he would not have had a heckler to shut down...because 9/11 would not have happened.
Krauthammer: No Reason to Abandon Iraq Yet
Charles Krauthammer's article , "Benching Benchmarks", at National Review Online speaks volumes about how we have been achieving success in Iraq, and that we should not give up yet. He opens up with this statement.
It does not have the drama of the Inchon landing or the sweep of the Union comeback in the summer of 1864. But the turnabout of American fortunes in Iraq over the last several months is of equal moment — a war seemingly lost, now winnable. The violence in Iraq has been dramatically reduced. Political allegiances have been radically reversed. The revival of ordinary life in many cities is palpable. Something important is happening.
And what is the reaction of the war critics? Nancy Pelosi stoutly maintains her state of denial, saying this about the war just two weeks ago: “This is not working. ... We must reverse it.” A euphemism for “abandon the field,” which is what every Democratic presidential candidate is promising, with variations only in how precipitous to make the retreat.
Very, very true. All of our military's work, and the efforts of the surge, are showing more and more signs of success. We're on the cusp of really breaking through and ending this occupation in a favorable, victorious manner...and these anti-war Dems still can't accept that.
Their excuse is found in the statement "Iraq has not achieved the political benchmarks set". Krauthammer acknowledges that having all of these benchmarks achieved is a good thing, and would make for a faster end to all of this...but it's not quite necessary at this point. Read on...
But does the absence of this deus ex machina invalidate our hard-won gains? Why does this mean that we cannot achieve success by other means?
Sure, there is no oil law. But the central government is nonetheless distributing oil revenues to the provinces, where the funds are being used for reconstruction.
Sure, the de-Baathification law has not been modified. But the whole purpose of modification was to entice Sunni insurgents to give up the insurgency and join the new order. This is already happening on a widening scale all over the country in the absence of a relaxed de-Baathification law.
As for federalism, the Kurds are running their own region, the Sunni sheiks in Anbar and elsewhere are exercising not just autonomy but control of their own security, and the southern Shiites are essentially governing themselves, the British having withdrawn in all but name.
Yes, a provincial powers law would be nice because it would allow for provincial elections. We should push hard for it. But we already have effective provincial and tribal autonomy in pivotal regions of the country.
So, while the legislative benchmarks have not been reached from the top down...success is being reached from the ground up. Krauthammer continues...
Why is top-down national reconciliation as yet unattainable? Because decades of Saddam’s totalitarianism followed by the brutality of the post-invasion insurgency destroyed much of the political infrastructure of the country, causing the Iraqis to revert to the most basic political attachment — tribe and locality. Gen. David Petraeus’s genius has been to adapt American strategy to capitalize on that development, encouraging the emergence of and allying ourselves with tribal and provincial leaders — without waiting for cosmic national deliverance from the newly constructed and still dysfunctional constitutional apparatus in Baghdad.
Al-Qaeda in Iraq is in disarray, the Sunni insurgency in decline, the Shiite militias quiescent, the capital city reviving. Are we now to reverse course and abandon all this because parliament cannot ratify the reconciliation already occurring on the ground?
Good question. The answer is simple...there is no reason to do so. Our troops are playing a big part in helping Iraqis build stability in their own nation from the ground up. Soon enough, the central government in Baghdad will be stabilized, and we'll begin to see that despite all of the violence, bloodshed, and lives lost...it was not in vain, but for a more secure world for everyone, including you and I, to live in.
It does not have the drama of the Inchon landing or the sweep of the Union comeback in the summer of 1864. But the turnabout of American fortunes in Iraq over the last several months is of equal moment — a war seemingly lost, now winnable. The violence in Iraq has been dramatically reduced. Political allegiances have been radically reversed. The revival of ordinary life in many cities is palpable. Something important is happening.
And what is the reaction of the war critics? Nancy Pelosi stoutly maintains her state of denial, saying this about the war just two weeks ago: “This is not working. ... We must reverse it.” A euphemism for “abandon the field,” which is what every Democratic presidential candidate is promising, with variations only in how precipitous to make the retreat.
Very, very true. All of our military's work, and the efforts of the surge, are showing more and more signs of success. We're on the cusp of really breaking through and ending this occupation in a favorable, victorious manner...and these anti-war Dems still can't accept that.
Their excuse is found in the statement "Iraq has not achieved the political benchmarks set". Krauthammer acknowledges that having all of these benchmarks achieved is a good thing, and would make for a faster end to all of this...but it's not quite necessary at this point. Read on...
But does the absence of this deus ex machina invalidate our hard-won gains? Why does this mean that we cannot achieve success by other means?
Sure, there is no oil law. But the central government is nonetheless distributing oil revenues to the provinces, where the funds are being used for reconstruction.
Sure, the de-Baathification law has not been modified. But the whole purpose of modification was to entice Sunni insurgents to give up the insurgency and join the new order. This is already happening on a widening scale all over the country in the absence of a relaxed de-Baathification law.
As for federalism, the Kurds are running their own region, the Sunni sheiks in Anbar and elsewhere are exercising not just autonomy but control of their own security, and the southern Shiites are essentially governing themselves, the British having withdrawn in all but name.
Yes, a provincial powers law would be nice because it would allow for provincial elections. We should push hard for it. But we already have effective provincial and tribal autonomy in pivotal regions of the country.
So, while the legislative benchmarks have not been reached from the top down...success is being reached from the ground up. Krauthammer continues...
Why is top-down national reconciliation as yet unattainable? Because decades of Saddam’s totalitarianism followed by the brutality of the post-invasion insurgency destroyed much of the political infrastructure of the country, causing the Iraqis to revert to the most basic political attachment — tribe and locality. Gen. David Petraeus’s genius has been to adapt American strategy to capitalize on that development, encouraging the emergence of and allying ourselves with tribal and provincial leaders — without waiting for cosmic national deliverance from the newly constructed and still dysfunctional constitutional apparatus in Baghdad.
Al-Qaeda in Iraq is in disarray, the Sunni insurgency in decline, the Shiite militias quiescent, the capital city reviving. Are we now to reverse course and abandon all this because parliament cannot ratify the reconciliation already occurring on the ground?
Good question. The answer is simple...there is no reason to do so. Our troops are playing a big part in helping Iraqis build stability in their own nation from the ground up. Soon enough, the central government in Baghdad will be stabilized, and we'll begin to see that despite all of the violence, bloodshed, and lives lost...it was not in vain, but for a more secure world for everyone, including you and I, to live in.
The "Gore's" Prayer
Found this in the comments section of an article at The New Editor, credit goes to comment #9, "Buck". I don't know if "Buck" created this himself, but I had a good laugh at this and I've never seen it before. Enjoy...
Al Father, who art in transit,
Phony be thy game.
Thy Lear-Jet hums.
Those lies you’ve spun,
About Earth, and your huge mansion.
Give us a break, your daily dread.
And forgive us with bus passes,
As we curse those flying first-class above us.
And lead us not into stagflation,
But humor us more, Sir Carbon-Knievel.
Amen!
Al Father, who art in transit,
Phony be thy game.
Thy Lear-Jet hums.
Those lies you’ve spun,
About Earth, and your huge mansion.
Give us a break, your daily dread.
And forgive us with bus passes,
As we curse those flying first-class above us.
And lead us not into stagflation,
But humor us more, Sir Carbon-Knievel.
Amen!
Study Finds That Democrats are the Party of the Rich
Of course, us conservatives knew that already.
Rich people vote for Democrats...it's common knowledge, now we have statistical proof.
According to study by the Heritage Foundation, more than half of the wealthiest households in America are concentrated in the 18 states where Dems hold both Senate seats. Also, out the wealthiest 1/3rd of Congressional districts, 58% of those seats are held by Democrats.
The measurement of wealth was determined by the number of individuals in each district or state that are earning over $100,000/year, and joint-filing married couples earning over $200,000/year.
This is definitely contrary to constant harping of Democrats that the GOP is the "party of the rich". This same study showed that the majority of Republicans in Congress come from areas or states that are largely middle-class.
Rich people vote for Democrats...it's common knowledge, now we have statistical proof.
According to study by the Heritage Foundation, more than half of the wealthiest households in America are concentrated in the 18 states where Dems hold both Senate seats. Also, out the wealthiest 1/3rd of Congressional districts, 58% of those seats are held by Democrats.
The measurement of wealth was determined by the number of individuals in each district or state that are earning over $100,000/year, and joint-filing married couples earning over $200,000/year.
This is definitely contrary to constant harping of Democrats that the GOP is the "party of the rich". This same study showed that the majority of Republicans in Congress come from areas or states that are largely middle-class.
Sarkozy 1, Old Socialist Ways 0
French President Nicolas Sarkozy is emerging as victorious in his standoff with the striking rail and subway workers of France.
The strike was a protest against Sarkozy, who was abandoning the current entitlements and generous pay for early retirement and pension for rail workers. Sarkozy's belief is that the government payouts for these benefits is part of the reason that France is not competitive economically.
Sarkozy is in the midst of a dynamic attempt to revitalize a French economy that has been plagued by an unemployment rate that was over 8% as of 2006, and slow or stagnant growth since the increased socialism and nationalization of industry and banks during the 1980's under Francois Mitterrand.
The initial tide of popularity for the strike amongst the rail and subway workers has "collapsed", as many union representatives have stated, and the workers are returning in droves.
Of the 45 rail union committees in France, 42 have already voted to abandon the strike and return to work.
The strike was a protest against Sarkozy, who was abandoning the current entitlements and generous pay for early retirement and pension for rail workers. Sarkozy's belief is that the government payouts for these benefits is part of the reason that France is not competitive economically.
Sarkozy is in the midst of a dynamic attempt to revitalize a French economy that has been plagued by an unemployment rate that was over 8% as of 2006, and slow or stagnant growth since the increased socialism and nationalization of industry and banks during the 1980's under Francois Mitterrand.
The initial tide of popularity for the strike amongst the rail and subway workers has "collapsed", as many union representatives have stated, and the workers are returning in droves.
Of the 45 rail union committees in France, 42 have already voted to abandon the strike and return to work.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
