Conservative Liberal

FDR would have been a Republican today.

Let the race begin!

Originally posted on http://eric-odessit.spaces.live.com/

 Fox News reports that former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani started preparations for the Presidential Run in 2008.



The former mayor filed papers to create the Rudy Giuliani Presidential Exploratory Committee, Inc., establishing a New York-based panel that would allow him to raise money to explore a White House run and travel the country.


The four-page filing, obtained by The Associated Press, lists the purpose of the non-profit corporation “to conduct federal ‘testing the waters’ activity under the Federal Election Campaign Act for Rudy Giuliani.”

…………………………………………………………………………….

The Republican field is expected to grow with Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, Sen. Bill Frist of Tennessee, Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and New York Gov. George Pataki expected to join the presidential fray.


Giuliani just might be the war fighting leader we need.


“It doesn’t matter what the media does to ridicule him or misinterpret him or defeat him. They ridiculed Winston Churchill. They belittled Ronald Reagan. But like President Bush, they were optimists. Leaders need to be optimists. Their vision is beyond the present, and it’s set on a future of real peace and security,” Giuliani said.

“Some call it stubbornness. I call it principled leadership.”


Giuliani has an advantage of name recognition over all the other Republicans.  He also might the best candidate to win the general elections because of this advantage and because he is socially liberal, which some would call “Libertarian”.  Some potential candidates, like Mitt Romney of Massachusetts and New York Gov. George Pataki, are not much different from Giuliani.  Romney would probably be pretty good as well, but he does not have the name recognition.  I wish they all would just clear the field.  Romney should just go for VP.  Here I can fill up the whole cabinet:
Mitt Romney for VP;
John Bolton for the State Department;
Someone like former General Tommy Franks for the Defense Department;
and, in the spirit of bipartisanship, Joe Lieberman for the Justice Department.  After all, he used to be a DA.

Link to Voting | Vote | 2006 Elections – FOXNews.com

December 10, 2006 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Elections: past and future

Originally posted on http://eric-odessit.spaces.live.com/

Here is something I wrote in regard to the next elections:


 


Looking for wartime leaders.


The midterm elections are over. We did not vote for President this time, but the question of who might be worthy of this job was and still is in the back of my mind. But first a few thoughts on the Congressional elections. Our country is at war. We all had a choice between 2 parties: a Surrender Party and Let’s-Fight-without-Offending-Anyone Party. As bad as these options were, I’d rather have Let’s-Fight-without-Offending-Anyone Party in power. It is possible to turn this Lets-Fight-without-Offending-Anyone Party into a Fighting Party, but the time to do it is during the Primary elections. Unfortunately, the Surrender Party has won. Let’s hope that the fight will not be over in 2 years. This logic is also very relevant to those all important elections 2 years away.

Now on to the question of those wartime leaders. First of all, what are the qualities required in a leader of a nation at war? After all, in a free nation there is no “fuhrer principle”: a civilian leader, be it a President or a Prime Minister, does not tell the generals what to do. Thus, such a leader would have to concentrate on making strategic policy decisions and inspiring the nation. Thus, a leader like that would have to be willing to do what is right for the cause, regardless of personal consequences. This leader would also have to be defiant, not to be afraid to blatantly tell the truth, without worrying of offending anyone. Do we have someone in this country who possesses these qualities? Well, let’s start with our current President, who, although will finish his term in 2 years, is still useful as an example for this discussion. His record is mixed. After 9/11 he did talk about an attack on America as an act of war and the need to respond. But still, he immediately started to talk about our enemies in politically correct terms, calling Islam “Religion of Peace” and inviting members of organizations with known terrorist ties to special events related to commemorating the 9/11 attacks. So, Bush is a typical member of the Lets-Fight-without-Offending-Anyone Party. But is there anyone who understands that, when you are fighting a war, you are bound to offend people? That is, if you are fighting to win. Well, Rudy Giuliani comes to mind. He was not afraid to return the Saudi Prince’s check after 9/11, when that prince said something about 9/11 being the result of our support for Israel. Another example is Mitt Romney. He was unapologetic after stating that current terrorism threat comes from Muslim fascists and the hate is often preached in mosques. Recently he refused to provide official police escort for former Iranian President Mohammed Khatami’s September 10 visit to the Boston area. The final example is “Govenator” Arnold Schwarzenegger. Of course, Arnold cannot run for President, but his example is useful in order to illustrate what I am talking about. During this summer’s Israeli war against Hezbollah Arnold, along with Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, attended a rally in support of Israel. Local Islamists were, of course, very upset about this. The Mayor later apologized, but Arnold refused. In another example, he wasn’t shy about telling immigrants to assimilate into American culture. This is definitely something that both Arnold and I can relate to. There is something all 3 of these Republican politicians have in common, besides having some backbone. They are all belong to what usually called Moderate wing of the Republican Party. They are all socially liberal (libertarian might be a better term). This makes it very hard for them to get a Republican nomination for President. But here is what Republican voters have to wake up to: all those domestic social issues are irrelevant to fighting a war. So called Conservatives worried about offending anyone are not good wartime leaders, even if they are pro-life. And those who don’t try to be politically correct, but unelectable, are not useful either. Majority of people in this country don’t like abortions, but think that the Government should stay out of this issue. I happen to hold the same view. So, instead of trying to elect super-Conservatives, we should try to elect war fighters. And if such candidate happens to be very popular, like Giuliani, it is even better: makes it harder for the MSM to dump on them and undermine the war effort.

Now that was Republican side. But what about the Democrats? The Democratic Party wasn’t always a Surrender Party. Unfortunately, at this time it is unlikely that it will become Fighting Party any time soon. The last sane Democrat was recently kicked out of the party. Although, everything possible. If the Democrats manage to produce a war fighting candidate for 2008, such candidate will likely get my vote, even at the expense of domestic concerns. That is, if I will be convinced that this person will make a good war time leader. But, as I said, it is unlikely. There is, however, one potential Democratic candidate who possesses certain ruthlessness necessary for fighting a war. The problem with that candidate is that she cannot be trusted. I am talking, of course, about Hillary. She will do whatever is politically expedient for her. And if fighting the war the way it should be fought is politically expedient, she will be a war fighter. But she will do what is necessary for the wrong reason. But in the end, it does not matter why she would do what needs to be done. I am saying all this not because I all of a sudden became a supporter of Hillary Clinton. She will never get my vote. As I said, she can’t be trusted. However, if she does become President, which is a distinct possibility, not everything is lost. We simply have to shape the public opinion in such a way that she is forced to do what is necessary, even if it is for the wrong reason. We will suffer domestically because of her socialist policies, but it will not matter, as long as it does not interfere with the war effort.

To summarize, we need a leader who will be honest enough to say: “I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears, and sweat.” We need someone who can be blunt and tell it like it is: “We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and suffering.” We need a leader who can explain our policy in very simple terms: “You ask, what is our policy? I can say: It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us: to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime.” Finally, we need someone who can summarize our goals thus: “You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: It is victory, victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival.” Yes, I am dreaming about someone like Winston Churchill becoming our President. There is always hope.

December 10, 2006 Posted by | Articles | Leave a comment

Jewish Russian Telegraph: Senator Joe Lieberman refuses to rule out switch to GOP

Originally posted on http://eric-odessit.spaces.live.com/

 Well, I went to Jewish Russian Telegraph in order to link to it on my new blog and found this:



HARTFORD, Conn. –Sen. Joe Lieberman on Sunday repeated his pledge to caucus with Senate Democrats when the 110th Congress convenes in January, but refused to slam the door on possibly moving to the Republican side of the aisle.


………………………………………………………………..


“I’m not ruling it out but I hope I don’t get to that point,” he said. “And I must say — and with all respect to the Republicans who supported me in Connecticut — nobody ever said, ‘We’re doing this because we want you to switch over. We want you to do what you think is right and good for our state and country,’ and I appreciate that.”


Ronald Reagan used to say: “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me”.  Senator Lieberman will have to say: “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party threw me out”.  At this point he was the last sane member of the Democratic Party.  I do hope that this once great party will be able to get its sanity back, so that we can have some real choice by the time of next elections.  I am not holding my breath, though.


 


Link to Jewish Russian Telegraph: Senator Joe Lieberman refuses to rule out switch to GOP

December 10, 2006 Posted by | Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Jewish GOP Vote Hits 26.4%

Originally posted on http://eric-odessit.spaces.live.com/

Although I understand that majority of American Jews vote for Democrats because of historical reasons, I still can’t understand why it keeps happening now, when the Democratic Party supports Israel much less than the Republican Party, and when the Democratic Party became home to outright anti-Semites.

But slowly the Jewish community in this country is beginning to wake up:

“According to the RJC exit polls of 1000 voters (margin of error +/-3%) taken yesterday, support for the GOP among Jewish voters was 26.4%.”

All I want to say to those Jews who still want to vote for FDR is that FDR would be a Republican today.

 

December 10, 2006 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment