Quotes of the Day:

The Question:

Should the 9/11 suspects go on trial in New York?

Quotes and Comments:

• “What the Obama administration is telling us loud and clear is that both in substance and reality the war on terror from their point of view is over,” Mr. Giuliani said on “Fox News Sunday.” “This seems to be an overconcern with the rights of terrorists and a lack of concern for the rights of the public.”

Why is Mr Giuliani so worried?

Related Links:

• US Govt
• 8th Anniversary of 9/11 Terrorist Attacks

Former NYC mayor and still-current fascist Rudy Giuliani was on hand for Wednesday’s Yankees game at their new home. However, all was not well in his world, he was forced to sit just behind the dugout instead of his usual seats alongside the dugout. This is apparently unacceptable for Rudy as the NY Post reported:

He was overheard moaning to wife Judith that he preferred his old seats at the side of the dugout, which allowed him to chat with the players. A spy said, Giuliani was sitting in the first row behind the dugout and was complaining. He told Judy he wanted his old seats back. He summoned security and was immediately swooped away to another seat behind home plate. A young couple sat down in his [old] spot and said, ‘Giuliani wanted our seats so we had to move here.’ ” A rep for Giuliani didn’t get back to us.

[NY Post]

Giuliani lamented the lack of a strong Republican leader who could direct the party’s attention to what he called “the most left-wing agenda … since Roosevelt.”

“We don’t have a real leader of the party right now because we don’t have a president, we don’t have presidential candidates,” Giuliani said in the CNN interview. “So everybody gets to speak their minds.”

An unsuccessful candidate for the Republican presidential nomination for 2008, Giuliani criticized Obama’s domestic policies, including the economic stimulus package and proposed overhaul of the health care system, saying they expanded government and threatened economic stability.

“I think he has gone much further to the left than I thought he would,” Giuliani said.

He was less critical of Obama’s foreign policy so far, agreeing with the increased military focus on Afghanistan and Obama’s low-key approach to the controversial Iranian election, and the subsequent demonstrations and government crackdown.

“I think some of my Republican colleagues sort of instinctively criticized that,” he said of the Iran situation. “I’m not sure I wouldn’t have done the same thing and not get America, you know, deeply involved in that.”

Asked about questions by some conservatives about whether Obama is a U.S. citizen, Giuliani laughed and said, “We’ve got better things to do than that.”

“I’ve actually seen a birth certificate that kind of satisfies me that he was born in the United States,” he said. “I don’t get the issue. I don’t know why they’re pushing it as far as they are.… To pick false issues like that hurts us more than it hurts the other side.”

Giuliani said one possible Republican leader is former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who impressed him on the campaign trail last year.

“I thought she was a really good governor. … I thought she had done a really good job,” he said. “There are a lot of questions because of all of the things that have been raised. She had the chance to answer them all. And I think she’s a real presence in our party.”

Asked if he would run for president again, Giuliani didn’t rule it out.

“I don’t know. We’ll see,” he said, adding, “We’ll have to decide that some time at the end of this year.”

When defending the iniquities of their own healthcare system, the American Right regularly point to the failings of ’socialized medicine’ in the UK. For instance, Rudi Giuliani’s presidential campaign – when it wasn’t just “noun, verb, 9/11” – spent a lot of time worrying about my prostate. 

While things didn’t go too well for Rudi, it would seem that the ‘fear the NHS’ message has gotten through. This month’s Word Magazine retells the hilarious story of Ryan Adams breaking his wrist while onstage in Liverpool. A witness to the incident says:

“The last I heard of him was a scream of ‘NO NATIONAL HEALTH – I’M INSURED!’”

Still Adams can be forgiven for insulting the scuffed jewel of our tatty public service crown because…well, the songs are quite good. But I think Frances Bean still wants her money back.

The Art of Social War by Jodi Wing

Stacy Knight was at the top of her game the evening that her “I HEART New York” campaign was announced toward the end of Rudy Giuliani’s reign has mayor.  She sparkled as a member of his administration and, based upon the reception of her PR campaign, had great prospects after Giuliani left office.  On top of that, she was engaged to James Makepeace, the man of her dreams.  They both were hard working New Yorkers who supported each other in all things.  All things, that is, until Jamey’s skyrocketing career required a transfer to Los Angeles soon after their wedding so that he can take over the helm of Pacificus, a floundering film studio.  Stacy and Jamey need to learn how to navigate the shark invested waters in Hollywood to save Jamey’s career and their new marriage.

What I enjoyed the most about The Art of Social War was what set it apart from most other chick lit novels I’ve read.  While Stacey’s marriage was tested in LA, it was not in the way that most novelists would have chosen.  For me, this was a breath of fresh air.  Wing also shaped the feudal battle between the Makepeaces and the former owners of Pacificus around the 6th century Chinese military treatise The Art of War by Sun Tzu.  I enjoyed the way that Stacey orchestrated Jamey’s counter attack using the enemy’s weapon of choice.  As preparations for the final battle were made, I couldn’t book the book down.

It took me a little while to warm up to Jodi Wing’s first novel full of corporate espionage, intrigue, and Hollywood high jinx.  Her characters are very human and I honestly liked Stacey and Jamey very much.  I found Jamey’s decision to break the news about his career to Stacey at her big party.  Given everything I was to learn about him, it was against his character.  Most noticeably, I had a difficult time believing that Stacey’s 10 to 15 years of experience in New York’s corporate environment, most recently as a member of Rudy Giuliani’s administration, left her so unprepared for corporate life in LA.  While understanding that Stacey’s deep longing for home explains some of her views, I can’t see New York as a warm, welcoming, and fair environment.  From what I’ve heard, Omarosa could give Stacey’s arch nemesis Julia Mallis (the last name says it all) and the rest of her gaggle a run for their money.

I smiled appreciatively as I finished this tasty piece of chick lit.  Although the first half of the book moved somewhat slowly for me, I thoroughly enjoyed the pay off.  Knowing the ultimate outcome did not take away from my delight as the ride took off.  Quite appropriately, The Art of Social War has already been optioned by Elaine Goldsmith-Thomas.   I’ll be looking forward to finding out who will be playing Stacey, Jamey, Julia and Simon.  This novel has all the potential needed to become a great chick flick.

******
The Art of Social War will be released tomorrow!  To order this book, click here.

The Republican Convention in St. Paul

„Es macht mir Sorgen, das jemand nach Europa reist und von dort Ideen in die USA importiert“, „ich habe einen Vorschlag zum Energiesparen: Al Gores Jet soll am Boden bleiben“, „es ist ein Mann, der endlos über einen Krieg reden kann, den Amerika führt, aber nie das Wort Sieg in den Mund nimmt“.

Alle Zitate stammen von Tag Drei des Konvents der Republikaner in St. Paul mit Reden von Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Rudi Giuliani und Sarah Palin, der Kandidatin fürs Amt des Vizepräsidenten. Wenn ich an den Abend denke, ist mir immer noch schlecht. Ich liebe die USA, aber in diesen Stunden war mir, als hätte sich alles Üble, Kriegstreibende, Verkehrte, Bornierte und Boshafte dieses Landes im Excel Energy Center konzentriert. Liebe Leserin, lieber Leser, genießen Sie den Wahlkampf in Österreich! Verglichen mit dem in den USA ist er nicht nur kurz, er ist ein Genuss. Schmalz, Pathos, Hurrapatriotismus. Geschichten von Soldaten, die mit abgetrenntem Unterleib ihren Kameraden Feuerschutz geben. Ein euphorisiertes Publikum mit Cowboyhüten und blinkenden McCain-Ansteckern, das Stumpfsinn wie „Drill, Baby, drill!“ skandiert. Desavouierung Obamas als Zauderer und Wendehals, Karrierist und Steuerteufel. Kein Wort über Bush, dem die Amerikaner Krieg, Budgetdefizit und ein katastrophales Auslandsimage verdanken. Drohungen gegen die Presse, weil sie die Vergangenheit von Palin durchleuchtet hatte. Die Gouverneurin von Alaska setzte in ihrer Rede den Tiefpunkt, indem sie minutenlang jedes Familienmitglied vorstellt. Auch kann ich die Wörter Kriegsheld, Maverick und McCain nicht mehr hören. Was genau macht einen ehemaligen Kriegsgefangenen eigentlich zum besseren Außenpolitiker?

On August 26th, while reading the Daily News Record, my local paper, I came across an article entitled, “Mississippi Plant Raid Creates Hispanic Panic.” Although the title pretty well summarizes the events of the story, it catalogs a massive search and detention of illegal immigrants by federal officials. One question that went through my mind after reading this article was, “what makes this story newsworthy?” It stated that this was the largest raid to date, but size doesn’t necessarily imply importance. Now unlike many of the other actions of the federal government, I believe that the federal government has a moral and constitutional duty to protect and defend the borders of our country from those who try to penetrate them illegally. I think the answer to my question of newsworthiness is one of rarity. Honestly, how many times can you recall hearing of raids like this in either Mississippi, or any other state, for that matter? It’s difficult to recall them, isn’t it? Why aren’t they more common? Why don’t they defend our borders? Although certainly some blame rests with the INS and other related governmental organizations, far more should fall on the shoulders of our politicians.

If you will recall from the YouTube Republican Presidential debates back in late 2007, Rudi Giuliani was accused of running New York City as a sanctuary city during his tenure as mayor. In his defense, he argued that they rounded up and detained “every single illegal immigrant that New York City could find that either committed a crime or was suspected of a crime.” Did not Giuliani see the flaw in his own logic here? Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t being in this country illegally a crime in and of itself? Why would an additional criminal act be necessary to require some sort of consequences? As a public servant, wasn’t it Giuliani’s responsibility to uphold the law? Apparently others on the stage picked up on this double standard too as Mitt Romney countered, “…and the idea that they reported any illegal alien that committed a crime, how about the fact that people who are here illegally are violating the law? They didn’t report everyone they found who was here illegally.” Although I have a number of disagreements with the former governor of Massachusetts, I believe that he hit the nail on the head with this comment. Illegal means, and is, illegal. It is neither cruel nor capricious, but a provable fact. We must enforce our immigration laws uniformly across the board to all nationalities regardless of skin color or language.

Often politicians will say that illegal immigration is a problem, but it is too difficult to remove them all. Instead we should offer amnesty to the illegals that are presently here and prevent future border violations. This argument is flawed for several reasons. First, why should people who have knowing violated U.S. law be rewarded with citizenship? Certainly there are a number of deserving immigrants who are trying to enter our nation legally. In addition, I believe that aliens will always try to enter illegally. What sort of message does amnesty send to these people? Go ahead and invade our country instead of going through the legal process. We’ll give you citizenship sooner or later. Second, we tried amnesty back in 1986. Did it work? Let’s see…do we still have an illegal immigration problem today? Of course we do. We know it didn’t work back then, so what would persuade us to give it another try? It is an easy answer for politicians because it allows them the opportunity to more or less maintain the status quo and it is inexpensive. No one has to be sent out to capture and deport these aliens. Companies that violate the law aren’t held accountable. Labor costs in certain industries are kept low. Everyone wins…except of course for the vast majority of us who don’t break the law. However, if we remain silent and inactive, we are as culpable as the lawbreakers themselves.

So what can we as citizens of the commonwealth do about this issue? I highly recommend writing or calling your legislators. These people have been sent to Richmond and Washington to represent you and your concerns and it is high time we hold them to account. I say that if a politician does not uphold his or her constitutional responsibility to defend and protect our borders, then he or she does not represent us. That person is not worthy to represent either the Shenandoah Valley, or the great state of Virginia. A good number of our leaders and candidates stand with us, but others deceive us with their rhetoric and their inaction. Do your research, contact your leaders, and make your will known, not just at the ballot box in November of this year, but next year too, and every year until the problem is finally solved.

Look out Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson, instead of wedding crashers, we’re about to see party crashers, courtesy of the Republican Party.

From Reuters:

When Democrats gather in Denver next week to nominate Barack Obama for president, they’ll be joined by such uninvited guests as Republicans Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney.

The two former presidential candidates will be among two dozen or so Republicans in the city hoping to get their party’s message out during a week dominated by Democratic festivities.

Their slogan? “Not Ready ‘08: A Mile High and an Inch Deep,” a play on the nickname for the high-altitude city in the western United States.

Along with daily news conferences and one-on-one interviews, the Republicans will roll out new TV advertisements and a website www.notready08.com to keep up attacks on Obama.

We’ll see if this strategy helps Senator John McCain or if it backfires. It could be very interesting that’s for sure. I’m still more interested in their VP choices expected to be announced this week. Thoughts?

The Wackness generated so much buzz at Sundance this year—even taking home the Audience Award for Dramatic Film—that I was unable to see it at the festival. I finally caught it yesterday during its New York City theater run at the Angelika Film Center on Houston St. I had been eagerly anticipating the film, largely due to its setting: the summer of 1994 in New York, an era in which the city was still viewed as a gritty and dangerous place, a perception then-new mayor Rudi Giuliani was eagerly trying to alter. I was also excited to see the film for its soundtrack, overflowing with mid-90s East Coast hip hop including tracks from Nas, Mobb Deep, Wu-Tang, Tribe and Biggie. In the summer of 1994 I was 12, and like most summers, I spent a week or so in the city visiting family. I listened to rap almost exclusively back then, and for me hip hop provided the perfect backdrop for a city I viewed as immense, exhilarating and intimidating.

It was with this mindset that I watched The Wackness, and left the theater having seen my favorite movie of the summer thus far. The film tells the story of two lost souls: Luke (Josh Peck), a student graduating from high school, and Dr. Squires (Ben Kingsley), a psychiatrist and the father of Luke’s love interest, that form a friendship as they battle their demons, deal with women and try to grow as men. (Luke also deals Squires weed). The story has heart and is laugh-out-loud funny, particularly with the slang-heavy dialog full of words like fly, dope and fresh. It also made me want to get a boombox and switch back to cassettes. The soundtrack was the icing on the cake, and paid a lot of respect to Biggie, whose debut Ready to Die was released in ‘94.

In honor of The Wackness and Notorious, here are some classic vids from Ready to Die:

“Warning”

“Juicy”

“One More Chance”

Am surprins, zilele trecute, pe stradă, o conversaţie între cîteva eleve de la o “binecunoscută” şcoală braşoveană. M-a frapat o frază: “Măi, ce s-a îmbătat aia dintr-a noua, mangă s-a făcut!” Discutau despre o ieşire nocturnă, de sfîrşit de săptămînă, o obişnuinţă, se pare, printre minorii încurajaţi de proprietarii de crîşme, bombe, cluburi, baruri, discoteci etc., etc.

Am intrat în vorbă cu ele şi, aşa, făcînd pe neştiutorul, am prins din zbor “subiectul” şi le-am întrebat ce muzică ascultă. “House!”, a spus, mîndră, una dintre ele. Şi ce înseamnă “muzica house”? Răspunsul a fost de-a dreptul stupefiant: “House plus ecstasy plus alcool egal fericire!”

Distracţia începe după “fericire”, mai cu urlete isterice, mai cu golirea conţinutului vezicii şi stomacului pe unde nici nu te aştepţi, cu cîte un schimb de pumni, de înjurături, mai un geam spart, “nu mare lucru” îmi spunea una dintre ele, rîzînd şmechereşte.

Deşi am mai semnalat “fenomenul” – fără nici o reacţie de la cei care ar trebui să fie primii îngrijoraţi de ceea ce se întîmplă – îl readuc în atenţie, simţind nevoia să fac o referire la o teorie care, pusă în practică, ar putea să ne facă viaţa – şi aici nu mă refer doar la copii, ci la toţi cei care se poartă asemeni animalelor, de la cei care produc contravenţii pînă la infractori – mai suportabilă.

În 1994, James Q. Wilson şi George L. Kelling scriau un articol, care a avut un efect neaşteptat, sub titlul “Broken Windows”, unde arătau că dacă un geam spart astăzi, de un golan dintr-un cartier, nu este imediat pus la loc iar infractorul nu este rapid arestat şi sancţionat, mîine întregul imobil, apoi întregul cartier, apoi oraşul vor fi la cheremul bandelor, al celor care calcă legea în picioare.

Interesant este de amintit că, unul dintre cei mai importanţi şi iubiţi primari pe care i-a avut New York-ul, Rudolph Giuliani, a adoptat, pornind de la acest articol, strategia “toleranţei zero”.

A mobilizat întregul aparat destinat ordinii publice, care a manifestat intransigenţă, lipsă totală de îngăduinţă faţă de orice abatere, cît de mică ar fi fost aceasta. Nimic nu a rămas nepedepsit şi rezultatul a fost scăderea la jumătate a delincvenţei şi criminalităţii – atenţie, la New York, unul dintre cele mai periculoase mari oraşe din lume – la jumătate!

Nimeni nu l-a acuzat, dimpotrivă, new-york-ezii îl consideră, cum scriam mai sus, unul dintre cei mai buni primari pe care i-au avut. Experienţa a fost preluată şi de alţi lideri – Sarkozy, de exemplu, pe cînd era ministru de interne, dar şi acum, cînd a ajuns preşedintele Franţei – iar rezultatele nu au întîrziat să apară. Este drept, sprijinul opiniei publice, al celorlalte autorităţi, a fost, în fiecare caz de fermă aplicare a “toleranţei zero”, total.

Firesc, fiindcă securitatea fiecăruia dintre noi este un indicator important al gradului de civilizaţie la care a ajuns societatea în care trăim şi un indicator după care ne judecă cei cu care am vrea să fim parteneri egali, într-o lume în care siguranţa şi liniştea cetăţeanului sînt puse mai presus decît orice.

Am dat doar exemplul copiilor, pentru că, din nefericire, “cancerul”, care mai tîrziu se metastazează, de aici începe.

“Knots Landing” creators David Jacobs and Michael Filerman have been looking for a new project for years. They wanted to bring the 1980’s drama of “Knots Landing” into the 21st century. They spent many fruitless months trying to come up with a new idea for a pilot.

Then one day David was watching the South Carolina democratic presidential debate. He saw the sparks fly between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. It occurred to him that the best drama comes from real life. Jacobs told Fake Gossip News, “As I watched the two of them tear each other apart I thought ‘you can’t make this shit up!’ It was at that point I got together with Michael and we decided to make a documentary about this years presidential election.”

But this will be no ordinary documentary it will be ended in such away that the story is told like a soap opera. And in an extra special bonus the documentary will be narrated by none other than “Knots Landing’ alumni Joan Van Ark.

The film is in full production now. Look for it to hit theatres next January on Inauguration day for President Clinton/McCain/Obama.

Here are the opening credits for “Knots Landing-Election 2008″:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suYPuC76UkE

McCain edged Mike Huckabee to win the South Carolina primary. Mitt Romney handily won the Nevada caucus and Hillary Clinton won the Democratic side.

So, what do we make of this?

McCain, Huckabee and Romney go to Florida where Giuliani is waiting. Huckabee is getting to the place where he needs to win. Giuliani definitely needs to win, but I don’t think he will. And he will probably be gone soon after.

Huckabee won’t win either, although if Fred and Hunter both drop out, he’s probably seen as more conservative than McCain or Romney.

Hunter’s campaign indicates he’s dropping out. Fred can’t last much longer. He needed better than third. It will be interesting to see them spin this.  Romney can’t afford too many more head-to-head losses against McCain. One of those two will win Florida.

On the Democratic side, Edwards needs to win in SC, or else he’s done. Clinton and Obama may fight it out till the convention the way it’s going. Although a big win by either on Super-Duper Tuesday may end it.

Well, it’s now the election year. I know, you thought it had already past, but no, the election is the first Tuesday in November, 2008. So I think I should start thinking about my choice for president.

First, any hope of the Democrats for my support is misplaced. None of them says anything that comes close to what I believe.  I read one of our left of center friends say something like the Democrats like all their choices; Republicans like none of theirs.

No wonder the Democrats like all their guys. They all say the same thing. Just watch Hillary’s Christmas commercial. Government programs right and left and how will they pay for them. Any Democratic candidate could have made that commercial.

Republicans have a choice; several choices, in fact.

There is no shortage of information. I get their emails, I have their web addresses, I watch TV, I read the blogs.

I still can’t decide. I had high hopes for Huckabee. He’s a social conservative. He’s folksy and communicates well. He likes the Fair Tax, even though I know that, practically, there is no chance of ever getting it enacted.

But then came the foreign policy “missteps” (at least they were in my opinion). Criticizing your president may be a good way to make points somewhere, but without a plan of your own, it’s pretty pathetic. But I agree we have to do better with our Middle East policy. For too long it’s been about propping up someone who is favorable to us.

But this is not a foreign policy post.

I like Fred. I want to be for Fred. I think Fred would make a good president. All my conservative blogging buddies like Fred.

But Fred doesn’t seem to want it. I can see his point that he is not consumed by this run and it may all be part of his formula for winning, but it makes me wonder. He’s also laid back and that may be part of it. But the question still nags at me, will he stick through the next month? The next week?

I like Rudi’s dynamism. I like his feelings on security. I like that he’s taking the Republican base into account and promising to appoint conservative justices. I’m not worried about the “scandal.” I think he explained it well.

I like John McCain because he doesn’t tell me what I want to hear. Yeah, there’s that campaign finance thing and I keep wondering when someone is going to spring that banking scandal from several years back. And if a guy who was tortured calls waterboarding torture, it’s good enough for me.

Duncan Hunter wouldn’t be a bad choice (nor Tom Tancredo before he dropped out). I just feel he’s a one issue candidate. Take away immigration and what do you have? Anyone? I thought so.

Mitt has not yet convinced me that he’s not that liberal governor of Massachusetts we saw so often. Besides he’s rich and I hate rich guys. OK, I’m kidding on that one.

Since I lean libertarian myself, Ron Paul does not sound that wacky to me. I disagree with his position on getting the troops out of Iraq immediately, but he may be right on everything else. I just don’t know how he’d get his program through Congress.

And has anyone heard of John Cox? Does anyone care?

Do I like any of my choices? No. Will I vote for any of them? In the general election, yes. In the primary? I’m just not sure yet. Yeah, I know. I’ve only got a month.

Freedom

We’re going to have a holly jolly Christmas this year, thanks to the obscenely early start of the 2008 Presidential election campaign. The candidates have their holiday greeting on tape and ready to roll for Christmas morning. I have watched a bunch of them and  there are two that really stand out for their God-awfulness.

Hillary is going to give us everything we need to be cared for from the cradle to the grave.

Rudi is asking Santa for peace with strength, at least in the Republican party.

Merry Christmas to all and to all a good night. (Sorry to leave all you Muslims, Buddhists, Zoroastrians , etc.  out in the cold like that. Happy Hanukkah to all you Israelis, though)

The 2008 Republican Presidential race might just possibly turn into a replay of 1996–with some tweaking. In 1996 Pat Buchanan upset GOP frontrunner Bob Dole in the New Hampshire primary. Buchanan received so much of a bandwagon effect from all the media hype over his unexpected win that, for a short time, Dole went back to Kansas to nurse his wounds and consider dropping out of the race. Then Buchanan was defeated by Stevo “Flat Tax” Forbes in Arizona, where conservative retirees liked Forbes’ fiscal policies more than Buchanan’s xenophobia. That allowed Dole to jump back into the race and trounce Buchanan and Forbes in the South Carolina primary and then march on to the nomination unimpeded. A Huckabee win in Iowa may do the same thing to Republicans in 2008, with the possibility of the GOP nominating a candidate perceived to be too far to the right wing of the party to win nationally may precipitate the party rallying behind a more moderate candidate. Like John McCain.

Yes, THAT McCain.

Republicans came very close to an electoral meltdown in ’96. Had Buchanan won in Arizona and Dole dropped out, Pat would have become the GOP nominee and gone on to a landslide defeat at the hands of Bill “Love the Boom, Baby” Clinton. Buchanan’s 30% share of the New Hampshire vote would probably have translated into a 35%-40% share of the national vote, giving Clinton a landslide 60%-65% victory.

Think of what political history would have been like after this: Democrats would possibly have retaken control of the Congress in 1996 and certainly, what with the “Clinton Coattails”, done so in 1998. That means no impeachment effort. That means, come 2000, Clinton fatigue would have been minimal and popular-by-association Veep Gore trounces the nationally inexperienced George W. in 2000. Republicans would have been consigned back to the political wilderness at least until the post-9/11 election of 2004—and possibly much longer. And the world would be a very different place.

But the Republican establishment came to its senses and rallied behind the boring, competent, war hero–and unelectable–Bob Dole, understanding that not to do so would be to turn a 9% victory margin for Clinton into a 30% obliteration. History may repeat itself in 2008.

In recent polls Mike Huckabee has surged to the forefront in Iowa, ahead of Rudi and Mitt, who have invested millions of dollars and several years to try and shake every farmer’s hand. All now, apparently, for not. This may set up Huckabee to be the Buchanan of 2008 What if Iowa does heart Huckabee? Let’s suppose Huckabee comes in first in the Corn State, with Romney and Giuliani place and show. That gives Huckabee a lot of momentum, to be certain, no doubt. But five short days latter the former Arkansas governor may well find that the love has gone.

Why a minimal post-Iowa bump for Huckabee? The conventional wisdom that put Mitt and Rudi so far out in front in Iowa has been skewed precisely by the big expenditures of time, money and resources these campaigns spent in Iowa. What the CW overlooks is that: a) Rudi comes from New York which, to most Iowans, is about as alien as Mars; b) Mitt is a Mormon and most Iowans have probably never even met a Mormon, let alone vote for one; and c) Mike comes from neighboring Arkansas, a state sharing far more values and characteristics with Iowa than New York, Massachusetts or even Utah.

If regionalism still means anything in American politics, it should mean something in a race between East Coast politicians and a heartland governor. Once everyone figures this out, post-Iowa, the punditocracy can then reevaluate—and downgrade–a Huckabee victory as something that they should have seen coming and, in retrospect, not as momentum-shifting a deal as the pre-Iowa hype has made it. Throw in the fact that Huckabee’s big appeal to heartland evangelicals may not play as well in more secular New Hampshire and Huckabee ends up in trouble. But to whom do New Hampshire voters turn?

What a Huckabee win in Iowa might do is cause a very strong reevaluation of the hitherto front-runners. New Hampshire has a lot of residents who live there precisely because they don’t want to have anything to do with New York, which doesn’t help Rudi from the get go. If Rudi and Mitt come out of Iowa labeled losers by media and Huckabee comes out labeled a winner who can’t win in November, voters are left by default with Fred Thompson or John McCain.

McCain, as you may recall, won in New Hampshire in 2000. If any of the current GOP candidates have a legacy claim the GOP crown, it’s McCain, who lost the first time around do to the brilliantly unconscionable Rovian negative smear attacks upon him. New Hampshire voters, left no-one to dance with, may go back to the love that got away.

(And let’s face it: the Republican in the field with the truly strongest claim to the Reagan mantle is Duncan Hunter, elected to Congress in 1980 on Reagan’s coattails—NOT Mitt and Rudi—but and that dude just ain’t gonna win.) And, while Romney, Giuliani and Huckabee have gotten spent the last few weeks getting shot up by the fratricidual negative campaign sniping they’ve unleashed, McCain has escaped such scathing precisely because he is flying under the radar.

A Huckabee Iowa win may result in McCain becoming the last man standing in New Hampshire and South Carolina. If that happens then yet another old, kinda boring but competent war hero Republican can go to defeat in November, albeit by a much smaller margin than if Huckabee became the party nominee. Just like ‘ol Bob Dole in ’96.

Lot’s of if’s and may’s, too be sure. But Mike Huckabee is probably John McCain’s best change—maybe only chance—of winning the nomination.

Who’d ‘a thunk it? A little know governor of Arkansas could make a meaningful run on the party nomination? Perish the thought. What is in the water in Arkansas by the way?

And can you bottle it and get the other presidential hopefuls to drink it?

Okay, time for a little fun. Can you guess who said the following regarding various issues??? 

U.S. Policy toward Africa

He said the United States should focus its policy toward Africa on increases in trade. “U.S. government aid is important, but aid not linked to reform perpetuates bad policies and poverty.”

In May 2007, he was informed that he held between $500,000 and $1 million in investments in companies that work in Sudan.

U.S. Policy toward India

He views India’s rapidly growing economy as a potentially lucrative market, saying the United States should “take advantage” (CNBC) of the “large number of consumers that are emerging in India.” In particular, he said, the U.S. stands to “make a lot of money in India” in new energy technology.

Military Tribunals and Guantanamo Bay

He said he supports the detention camp at Guantanamo. He said in a June 2007 interview with the Wall Street Journal that he believes the allegations of prisoner mistreatment at Guantanamo have “been grossly exaggerated, and many of the reports that I see are that it’s not terribly different from any other prisons.”

Domestic Intelligence

He defended the domestic spying initiatives, saying “he did it to protect our national security and to try to find out information about people that might attack us and might be preparing an attack on us, in order to secure us, in order to protect us.” He said in September 2007 that electronic surveillance should not be “unrealistically” limited.

War on Terror

He responded to John Edwards’ criticism of the war on terror, saying in June 2007, “This is not a bumper sticker; this war is a real war.” He generally refers to “the terrorist war against us,” lately, rather than the “war on terror,” he told TIME.

Democracy Promotion in the Arab World

He believes in a larger goal of a democratic (AFP) Iraq and Middle East. But, he says, stability takes precedence over democracy. “Democracy can’t flourish unless people are safe. You can’t have democracy when people are being killed,” he said in January 2007.

Energy Policy

He has ties to various energy companies, many of which are fossil fuel-oriented including Duke Energy Corp., the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association, Valero Energy Corp, and FPL Energy. He has supported increased use of nuclear power.

Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

He has held up Israel as “the only outpost of freedom and democracy in the Middle East and the only absolutely reliable friend of the United States.” (Haaretz) In a 2002 speech, he stressed that Jerusalem must “remain the undivided capital” of Israel. He also said at that time that the Palestinian Authority is not a “moral equivalent” to the Israeli government, because “there is a difference between a nation based on law and democracy and one that harbors terrorism.” He called on the Palestinian Authority to create “institutions of political and economic freedom and religious toleration.” More recently, he said that in his view it “makes no difference” whether the Palestinian Authority is run by Hamas or Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas. At a March 2007 fundraiser, he also said that the United States should “not push any peace process” until the Palestinian Authority recognizes Israel’s right to exist and condemns terrorism.

North Korea Policy

He supports the policy of China placing pressure on Pyongyang. “I think the strategy has produced enough results so far that you have to stick with it,” he said. He indicated it remains unclear whether Iran or North Korea is further along in developing a nuclear weapons program.

Cuba Policy

He is critical of Castro, which he made clear recently in a speech over whether or not to return Cuban child Elian Gonzales to Cuba in 2000 (He was an outspoken voice for keeping the boy in the United States).

He also attacked Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez for following Castro’s “model.” (AP) Speaking to a group in Florida, he said the United States must build an alliance with Mexico and Colombia to counteract the shift to the left of Latin American governments.

U.S. Policy toward China

He has not made many public statements on his views of China. However, he said in an CNBC interview that limiting China ’s ownership of U.S. debt is “generally a bad idea and generally self-defeating.” He said that the U.S. should build industries that we can sell” in China.

Defense Policy

He has called for an “offense-as-a-defense” (Journal-Register)strategy towards al-Qaeda, backing the U.S. troop surge and continued presence in Iraq.

He fully advocates the addition of thirty-five thousand troops to the army’s current level of 512,000 (AP).

In September 2007, he said the United States should pursue a nuclear missile defense system, as “America can no longer rely on Cold War doctrines such as ‘mutual assured destruction’ in the face of threats from hostile, unstable regimes.”

Iraq

He says we need a plan by which to measure progress but that does not include troop withdrawals. “You need statistics,” (FOX) he said in January 2007. “You need to be able to determine whether or not you’ve brought the violence down. If it doesn’t work, then you got to put more people in.”

He opposes any “artificial timeline” for troop withdrawal from Iraq, which he says would be tantamount to giving America’s enemies “a printed-out list of how it’s going to retreat (ChiTrib) to its enemy.” He is steadfast in his support for the war, which he considers part of the larger global war on terror.

Trade

In October 2007 he spoke in support of the pending Free Trade Agreements with Peru, Colombia, Panama, and South Korea, saying they “would be good deals for the United States.”

Homeland Security

In a September 2006 he stressed the need for a nuclear material detection system in the United States.

Iran

He has the United States should proceed diplomatically with Iran, but that “we will use a military option if we have to.” He said a military strike would be “very dangerous”but nuclear arms in the control of “an irrational person” like President Ahmadinejad was more dangerous.

His supporters are vocal advocates for bombing Iran preemptively in order to prevent it from obtaining nuclear weapons. 

Climate Change

He said he believes climate change exists (SFChron) and that something must be done to reduce pollution. However, he has not said outright that he believes climate change is caused by human activity. His statements with regard to policy on the issue have been rather vague.

Immigration

He supports some type of path (NYT) to citizenship for illegal immigrants. “If you have twelve million people, to thirteen to fourteen to fifteen million that are here illegally, it is much easier for terrorists and drug dealers to hide,” he said recently. He also said that he is in favor of a border fence and a database with which to keep track of all immigrants. 

As mayor of New York City, Giuliani opposed a law (NYT) that would have prevented illegal immigrants from receiving Social Security, food stamps and health care benefits.

United Nations

He has been extremely critical of the United Nations, which, he said, ”proved irrelevant to the resolution of almost every major dispute of the last 50 years.” He says the institution’s primary capabilities are in humanitarian and peacekeeping missions, but “we should not expect much more of it.”

Specifically, he said the United Nations must hold accountable states that support or condone terrorism. “Otherwise, you will fail in your primary mission as peacekeeper,” he said. “It must ostracize any nation that supports terrorism. It must isolate any nation that remains neutral in the fight against terrorism.”

U.S. Policy toward Russia

He advocates commercial engagement with Russia, but has also expressed support for the planned missile defense shield in Eastern Europe. In October 2007 he called for an increase in military spending to “send a heck of a signal” to Russia.

Recently he traveled to Moscow to promote U.S.-Russian business relations.

And the answer is [dramatic pause...]

Rudi Giuliani

So if you vote for him, you clearly vote for more of the same neo-con nonsense. 

Rudi’s been less than honest when it comes to facts about his cancer survival chances. What an asshole.

I recently read Rudy Giuliani’s book, “Leadership” and he has reminded me of an important strategic principle that he successfully utilized and is worth passing on, as I believe it is a wonderful lesson for small business owners to consider and do.

When Rudy first took over his job as mayor of New York City, the city was in shambles.  Everything bad was getting increasingly worse and very little was working well.  There were huge issues and low morale.  Nobody believed the situation could be changed.

Rudy of course wanted to attack the big issues and organize major changes.  One of the first issues he focused on was the huge and growing violent crime crime rate, New York City being a leader in homicides with over 2000 in the year before he took office as mayor.

People were afraid to walk the streets for fear of being involved on a major violent crime.

After evaluating the situation he made a series of immediate decisions, with his strategy being as follows:

1. Identify a few actions that were small but quickly achievable, and very visible.

2. Accomplish the goal quickly and visibly.

3, Repeat this a few times and many good things occur.

The people witnessed success, action, progress.  People began to believe that the city’s leadership was committed to change and more importantly was succeeding in making changes, successfully.

4. Small steps lead to larger ones, little successes lead to larger successes.

5. Morale improved dramatically and everyone got on board buying into a new way, a new path, success and accomplishment.  They accepted his leadership and followed his way.  Now real progress could be made as everyone was willing to work with his agenda and believed in his success, he became a leader that everyone wanted to follow.

In short, by identifying and accomplishing a few small easily accomplished quick victories, he set the stage for enormous cooperation and turnaround effort, and he gained the necessary support from his huge employee base -without which he could accomplish very little.

He created believers and supporters.

He became a leader with a vision, one who can do and does do, and everyone wanted to be part of his turnaround programs…and thus it happened, gathering and creating its own momentum.

So you truly understand his approach, I will identify his successes.

His goal was to reduce major violent crimes, a huge and difficult turnaround effort that everyone said could not be done.

He started out by ridding the city of the squeegee men, those panhandlers who would wash your car window when you stopped and expect a payoff, or would kick your car or spit on you or your window.

As with all changes, there was some resistance as they may not have been breaking the law so the Police Commissioner objected.  Rudy thought, and surmised they were at the very least j-walking and could be busted for that, and then checked out for additional warrants and processed if appropriate.  It worked like a charm and he was correct.  Many had warrants, citations, etc and they were apprehended, processed and removed from society,  if appropriate.  Others, feeling the pressure, left the streets. The squeegee men disappeared overnight.

It was a huge visible and immediate victory and removed hundreds of bad guys from the streets.

Rudi then went after the thugs that jumped over the turn-styles in the rapid transit system, again easy pickings, very visible and easy to stop as well as successfully clearing many more thugs off the streets.  Hmmm getting better.

Knowing many of his cops lived on Staten Island, Rudi sought out a way to support them and asked the borough president what he could do, who informed him that a few years back the ferries stopped carrying cars for some obscure reason which inconvenienced many commuters including many cops.

Rudy immediately reversed this and the ferries began carrying over 1000 cars per day which was viewed as a huge benefit to those involved and especially the cops.  Success once again, small, visible and successfully implemented!

Then he removed graffiti from the city owned trucks closed up or had repaired broken windows in abandoned buildings; he drove out the hookers, pimps and beggars and soon Times Square became the safest cleanest place in the city.

Amazingly, major crimes plummeted along with these programs being successfully implemented.  By the end of his term major violent crimes dropped 75%!  Not all because of these small programs but the small programs set the wheels of progress in motion, signalled the turnaround and successfully enlisted everyone’s support.

Everything began to work better, people were inspired to do their job, everyone believed they could contribute to a better way of life and that Rudy would lead them there.  What a huge and successful  environment for change.

That was all it took to create believers and appropriate action and the rest was a whole lot easier.  It worked.

Why not apply these same principles to your own turnaround?  Begin by solving small identifiable problems, and build success as you plan the turnaround of the larger issues.  Get your people on board -believing and supporting your vision and efforts- by successfully identifying and changing small easily accomplished issues -issues that support and improve the quality of life for the people involved- do this and there isn’t anything you cannot accomplish thereafter  You’ll have captured and motivated the commitment of the most important people in your business, your employees.

If you start with the big issues first it will be a tough long hard road with huge risk and likely limited potential success, as you have not yet successfully enlisted the support of your employees.   

Create a new deal, a new age, a new program, new goals,  identify some attainable victories, achieve them quickly and distinctly, take credit for it, and bring your employees back into the fold, then begin aiming at the bigger problems with support and momentum carrying you to success.

Good advice Rudy, thanks, if it worked for New York City, it could work for you.  Call if you need help 413-549-2966.

Here is what Republican front-runner Rudi Giuliani had to say about the qualifications and character of current Vice President Dick Cheney.

I would want a vice president who was a partner. Someone who was in on everything that was going on, so that that person could take over if, God forbid, something happened. You know, I was working for President Reagan, in fact I had breakfast with him, with a lot of other people, the day he was shot. So, I have been very, very close to a possible presidential assassination and seen how that all worked out that day…

So, immediately it makes you realize that (the) choice of vice president is a choice that you have to do in the best interest of the country-and you owe that to your fellow citizens. In good conscience you have to pick someone that you believe can handle the job as well as you can.

How do you pick a vice president? … I think Vice President Cheney and President Bush’s pick of Vice President Cheney is a good example of picking someone who is qualified to be president of the United States. That is number one — it’s paramount.

Am I missing something? Does Giuliani want Cheney as V.P. again, or does he just want to have gay sex with him?

A presidential administration is made up of many people, all of whom must be accounted for as mandated by law for oversight and budgetary purposes. Cheney has refused for six years to say how many collaborators he employs. In fact, he is on the record on saying that he considers himself to be above the law! If that’s not arrogance and a complete disregard for the law, I’m not sure what is. 

Cheney is an ideal partner for George W. Bush. Both men are liars, both endorse controversial practices like torture of prisoners, pre-emptive war, war profiteering, privatization of the military, etc. Cheney was the Secretary of Defense during the first Gulf War, and is also an entrenched Washington insider. Cheney’s record as V.P is morally questionable and illegal at worst. 

Cheney is frequently designated as ‘the worst vice-president in the history’ of the United States.In a recent column, Sally Quinn, wife of Ben Bradlee who was the Washington Post’s editor during the Watergate era, stated, ”The big question today among Republicans is how to get rid of Dick Cheney. He is perceived as toxic.”

In May, Dennis Kucinich, filed a resolution to open an impeachment procedure against the vice-president in the House of Representatives. In three articles, he accuses Cheney of having “manipulated intelligence to invent the threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction,” with having “misled citizens about an unproven relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda” and with “openly threatening Iran with aggression without any real threat to the United States.” 

In June, the Washington Post published a long series exposing the vice-president and the role he plays in the ’shadows.’ Allegations include he has worked to authorize wiretapping of citizens since September 11th, torture at Guantanamo, how he succeeded in intervening in the choice of Supreme Court judges, etc. There are also wide spread allegations that he manipulated CIA intelligence prior to the Iraq War, and some say he pressured spies to provide information that could be used to sell the war. 

No official or agent has yet denounced him, no proof has been provided to damn him, and he’s never been caught with his hand in the cookie jar. 

Then there’s the Scooter Libby thing. His tactics here are consistent with everything else he has done. Cheney’s Chief-of-Staff found himself convicted of false testimony and obstruction of justice and sentenced to thirty months in prison. Of course we know he was later pardoned by George W. Bush. “In the eyes of outside observers,” notes the Washington Post’s David Ignatius, “Cheney is the political equivalent of a black hole, which exerts a powerful but invisible force and emits neither light nor heat that could explain the decision process.” ”He is the enemy within,” deems Newsweek. “He has privatized the function of the vice-president,” deplores the New York Times. “The irony,” emphasizes former Reagan Administration official Bruce Fein, “is that the president finds himself with less power than he would have had, had he and Cheney not had such extravagant and monarchical pretensions.” 

This is who Giuliani wants as a back-up, or perhaps someone like him?

I have posted previously on this blog and commented that Giuliani is of the same dangerous and nisguided ideology that plagues George Bush and Dick Cheney. His prior comments and rhetoric clearly illustrate that he supports the war in Iraq and is quoted by many sources to that effect here, here. He also supports many of this administrations other initiatives. 

That’s bad enough. However his endorsement of a criminal like Cheney is foolish and shortsighted. In only seven short years, mainly as a result of Bush and Cheney’s poison policies, the U.S. is weaker and has lost the respect of many nations around the world. Our civil rights are on the back burner, the constitution is lining the cat box and the middle class is suffering.

If Rudi thinks that’s competent leadership, then I hope he winds up on a fishing trawler to a remote area of Alaska before the 2008 election.

Discussion on Rudi Giuliani and his “complex” stance on abortion continue to flood the headlines. Today’s headline on Giuliani and abortion comes from an article from the Associated Press, which reports that Senator Sam Brownback now describes himself as “much more comfortable” with Giuliani’s position on abortion. The article reports that Brownback and Giuliani met and discussed the issue of abortion and Brownback left “much more comfortable” about Giuliani because he believes Giuliani would appoint pro-life justices to the Supreme Court.

When asked whether he would describe himself as a pro-choice or a pro-life candidate, Giuliani replied, “you know what I am.”

I think I know what Rudi Giuliani is, he is an able and quick-thinking politician and he is pro-choice.

But lets be fair and let the former mayor of New York speak for himself, Giuliani said, “I’ve opposed abortion. I’d like to see a society in which there is no abortion. I think you have to get there by changing people’s minds and hearts. I’m not in favor of changing the law and the right that presently exists.”

Like I said in my previous post, either you see abortion as a moral evil or you don’t. Either abortion represents the tragic murder of unborn children or it does not. We cannot allow for candidates that say that abortion is evil but should only be limited and not legislated against–that is an incredibly slippery slope that we cannot go down.

The AP article ends with this comment by Giuliani: “I do think I’m in favor of everything else that would limit the number of abortions, that would increase the number of adoptions and that would move us in the direction of many fewer abortions. And if we could get to no abortions based on people’s decision-making, I’d be in favor of that.”

Unless Giuliani foresees progression toward utopia in America, he surely cannot believe that America will ever come to the point where there are no abortions based on people’s decision making. Giuliani is pro-choice. He believes that women should have the right to get an abortion–the right to murder their unborn child. Senator Brownback is pro-life but his claim to be “much more comfortable” with Giuliani’s stance on abortion is not helpful. Brownback’s statement only serves to further allow for “shades of gray” on abortion–something I simply am not willing to do.

I will not campaign for a candidate on this blog as I think that would contradict what we are setting out to do with this blog, but I will always draw attention to inconsistent ideologies and immoral beliefs and I believe Giuliani has both.

Are you pro-choice and anti-abortion or pro-life and anti-abortion? Or are you pro-choice and pro-abortion? Still following? In Abortion’s Shades of Gray, an op-ed piece in USA Today, Michael Medved cites a poll that states that the majority of Americans are pro-choice and anti-abortion, meaning that most American’s are against abortion but believe that women should in some circumstances be permitted legally to have an abortion. Thus, Medved points out that abortion has shades of gray—middle positions that do not see abortion as a black and white issue. While Medved is “unhesitatingly pro-life” he wants Americans to recognize that Rudi Giuliani’s position on abortion is much different from that of the democratic front-runners.

Giuliani, according to Medved “takes a mixed, nuanced approach that defies easy categorizations.” For instance, Giuliani opposes partial-birth abortion as well as legislation that would provide federal funding for abortions. In addition, Giuliani proposes to support legislation that would require underage girls to notify their parents before having an abortion. Giuliani, however, believes that women should have the legal right to choose to have an abortion. Thus Medved sees Giuliani as pro-choice and anti-abortion whereas all the front runners of the Democratic party are pro-choice and pro-abortion. Hillary Clinton, for instance, says abortion is a “tragedy” but supports the use of taxpayer money to foot the bill.

So of all the presidential candidates, Giuliani actually holds the position on abortion that most American’s hold, but are there really shades of gray when it comes to abortion?

I commend Medved for being “unhesitatingly pro-life” but I must say that abortion is either murder or its not. Life either begins at conception or it doesn’t. An embryo is either a human being or its not. Either abortion is the tragic genocide of millions of innocent babies or it is not.

I will admit that Giuliani’s political agenda concerning abortion is different from that of his democratic rivals, but his belief that women should have the right to an abortion clearly shows that when it comes down to it Giuliani believes that abortion is not immoral.

Are there shades of gray when it comes to abortion? In a word—no. The more we categorize people into various “gray” positions on abortion the more we devalue human life and distort just how tragic abortion really is.