A MESSAGE FOR DEMOCRATS: IF YOU OPPOSE THE "WAR ON TERROR", THEN YOU SHOULD VOTE FOR RUDY

The Democrats and the Left around the world often say there is no global war on terror, and they also often say that they hate the term as mush as they hate the term islamofascism.

They deride us hawks as warmongers and blame us for... well er um the war on terror.

In the UK, the left-wing Labour government has gone as far as banning government officials from using the words War on Terror and islam when dealing with, well er um... global jihad.

People on the left prefer the law enforcement model; they argue that global jihad is containable (as they argue Saddam was) and that the jihadists are not as bad as the USSR was and that they can be countered using law enforcement.

(Forget for the moment that they also fight tooth and nail to give the jihadists every single legal tool in the book, and that they fight just as hard to hamstring law enforcement while they're at it!)

WELL: If they really REALLY believe this then they should NOT vote for Hillary or Obama or Edwards or Kucinich or anyone BUT RUDY GIULIANI.

After all, nobody in the entire USA has anti-crime law enforcement cred's like Rudy: he cleaned up the carting industry, the fruit and vegetable markets and the fish market (all dominated by Organized Crime Syndicates) and also made the streets and the subways safe.

YUP: if you think the GWOT is a law enforcement issue vote Rudy.

Or content yourself with lesser qualified "enforcers" or... your own hypocrisy.

DAVID LETTERMAN: RUDY GIULIANI IS THE PERSONIFICATION OF COURAGE

PLEASE WATCH THE FIRST FEW MINUTES OF DAVE LETTERMAN'S OPENING MONOLOGUE ON HIS FIRST SHOW AFTER 9/11...

• I LIKE MITT AND RUDY AND FRED.

• AND I LIKE RUDY FOR HOW HE GOVERNED NYC FOR EIGHT YEARS - SAVING THE CITY - AND NOT JUST FOR HIM HE RESPONDED TO 9/11.

• EVERY NEW YORKER OWES RUDY A HUGE DEBT FOR IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF LIFE HERE. THEY SAID IT COULDN'T BE DONE, AND HE DID IT.
  

• HECK: HE MADE PEOPLE BILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF DOLLARS BY MAKING BY SAVING NYC FROM FILTH AND CRIME AND MAKING OUR REAL ESTATE THE MOST PRIZED IN THE WORLD.

ANYHOW: WATCH HOW HONESTLY AND DIRECTLY DAVE PRAISES RUDY.

• THIS WAS RIGHT AFTER THE ORDEAL.

• DAVE'S WORDS ARE REAL.

AND REMEMBER: AS CHURCHIL SAID: “Without courage all virtues lose their meaning.”

MY LINE IN THE SAND

In trying to decide what picture was appropriate for this post the gun toting Ann Coulter sums up my sentiments the best ;-)!! I've been wrestling with my odyssey on who to support for the Republican nomination. I have gotten A LOT of flack from some for my favoring of Rudy.

So last night while preparing for my article to submit to the KC Star I did some research. The following articles sum up my view of of the Republican race in general and my reasons for being close to endorsing Rudy. I think some in the Conservative base have become way too negative and too ideological on single issues. I also am done making apologies for favoring Rudy. You can disagree or disapprove of where I'm coming from but this is where I'm at and where I stand.

As I was reflecting on the dramatic turnaround in Iraq and how Bush is positioned for a rebound I thought about how I had stuck to my guns despite the constant criticism that I was delusional and wrong on Bush and the War. It is pretty awesome to see the turn of events and how it pays to be optimistic and to believe in and stand for what is right despite public sentiment. I will do the same on this issue even if the criticism is from other conservatives.

The Articles:

1) Conservatism's Self-Inflicted Wounds by Greg Alterton
This post describes where I am coming from to a tee!! I could not explain it any better than this. Here are some excerpts:

“When did abortion start dividing people within our own party in this manner that we’re fighting with each other and trying to provoke fights? I see a lot of conservatives fighting with each other, fellow Republicans, with far more vigor than they go after the Democrats. This is outrageous behavior.”

...I commented that American conservatism suffers from the lack of an identifiable consensus leader that can unite us all. Not since Ronald Reagan left office has conservatism produced a leader of national stature that we could all rally behind – and this lack of leadership since Reagan has been one of the great failings of this generation of conservatives. Leaderless, conservatism has deteriorated back to base instincts: eccentricity, paranoia, and nostalgia (to borrow an observation made by authors John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge in their generally positive history of contemporary American conservatism, The Right Nation). Under Reagan, conservatism was forward looking, positive, pro-active, visionary, out-reaching, appealing, unifying, and rational. Conservatism since Reagan has become stuck-on-stupid, negative, reactive, single-issued, inward-looking, strident, off-putting, divisive, and emotive. We keep looking for the next Reagan because conservatism hasn’t been as appealing or as victorious as it was in the Reagan era. Until we have a leader who can turn conservatism around to make it a positive force in American politics, I’m afraid that “appealing to the base” (meaning, as I’m using the term, appealing to the “base nature” of conservatism today) is a recipe for electoral disaster.

I would add that many conservatives have become overly idealistic, and consequently have become unrealistic about the progress of their issues. Many pro-life voters, as an example, reflect this unrealistic perspective on the politics of abortion. Here’s the reality: It’s been almost 35 years since Roe v. Wade. Over that time we’ve had almost 19 years and counting of pro-life presidents (Reagan, Bush-41, Bush-43), 12 years of Republican majorities in the House, and 16 years of Republican majorities in the Senate. And what do we have to show in terms of substantive progress on the abortion issue for all of that political advantage? The only issue that has passed Congress is the partial-birth abortion ban, but even that had to be affirmed by a recent decision of the Supreme Court.

Getting down to what this all means in the campaign for the nomination…Rudy’s pledge to appoint strict constructionists to the courts is about as good as it’s going to get for the pro-life movement. Even Reagan was spotty on his appointments to the Supreme Court, which means that Rudy’s appointments might actually be better for the pro-life issue than Reagan’s were (heresy, I know). And while GW Bush has been strongly pro-life, and the GOP had a majority in the Senate for four years of his Administration, some of Bush’s more solidly conservative judicial nominations never even came to a vote. So, to threaten to sit out the election if “pro-choice” Rudy Giuliani is nominated, or to hold the party, the nation, and every other issue of importance in the election hostage to the single issue of abortion, is unrealistic, naive, and just wrong-headed.

Once again I think of the issue of immigration and how it divided Conservatives. People like Michael Savage, Laura Ingraham and Michelle Malkin were exactly what Alterton describes Conservatives being since Reagan, "...negative, reactive, single-issued, inward-looking, strident, off-putting, divisive, and emotive." My fear is these Conservatives seem to be the loudest, I just hope they aren't the majority.

2) Today's Republicans might not elect Reagan by Steven Thomma
Again, Thomma makes some excellent points and expresses some of the frustration I feel. As Mike has said, some initially saw Reagan as the "lesser of 2 evils". Obviously, in hindsight those people now look ridiculous. Here is Thomma's opening paragraph:

They want to put his face on Mount Rushmore, but Republicans today are demanding such ideological purity that they might not even nominate Ronald Reagan for president if he were to run now.

3) What's a "Social Conservative"? by Greg Alterton
An excerpt:

So, why am I, a social conservative, supporting Rudy Giuliani for President? To address it briefly:

* Because Rudy is the most conservative person in the race. His record as mayor shows that he governed with conservative principles, and that he is willing and quite able to fight for those principles, successfully so. The fact that he did this in an extremely liberal city such as New York inclines me to believe that he’s up to the task to lead this nation.
* I support Rudy Giuliani because, while many people have fallen asleep on this point, we’re still a nation at war, working here and abroad to assure America’s security against Islamist terrorists. Rudy Giuliani clearly understands this, and is, in my opinion, the only one who can refocus the nation’s resolve on this issue.
* Finally, I think Rudy stands the best chance of beating Hillary Clinton. For me, the most important “traditional value” in this election is keeping the Clintons out of the White House. In this, I believe that social conservatism should, ultimately, be pragmatic.

On a personal note: I have worked in government relations and politics for the past 35 years. Thirty-five years ago, in college, I came to Christ, expressed faith in who he is and what he did on the cross, so I’ve spent my entire professional career considering how my faith impacts, or should impact, the arena I work in.

4) Why the Right Should Support Giuliani by Deroy Murdock
Here are some excerpts:

The most important ‘traditional value’ in this election is keeping the Clintons out of the White House,” says Greg Alterton, an evangelical Christian who writes for SoConsForRudy.com and counts himself among Rudolph Giuliani’s social-conservative supporters.

People like Alterton are important, if overlooked, in the Republican presidential sweepstakes. Anti-Giuliani Religious Rightists are far more visible. Also conspicuous are pundits whose cartoon version of social conservatism regards abortion and gay rights as “the social issues,” excluding other traditionalist concerns.

This “Rudyphobia” ignores Giuliani’s pro-family/anti-abortion ideas, his socially conservative mayoral record, and his popularity among churchgoing Republicans.

Religious Right leaders should study Giuliani’s entire, socially conservative record, not just the “socially liberal” caricature of it that hostile commentators and lazy journalists keep sketching. Social conservatives should not make the perfect enemy of the outstanding. Ultimately, they should recognize that a pro-life, third-party candidate would subtract votes from Giuliani in November 2008.

This would raise the curtain on a 3-D horror movie for social conservatives: “The Clintons Reconquer Washington” — bigger, badder, and more vindictive than ever.

Some have mentioned that we shouldn't support Rudy because too many Conservatives have threatened not to vote for him in the general election. I have taken that into account but I don't see why I should shun someone who I think would make the best president just because some are threatening to throw negative temper tantrums if they don't get their way.

HUCKABEE IS NOT THE ANSWER

While everyone in the Republican field is more competent and has more experience than any of the Dem nominees (save Ron Paul) there is a lot of dissatisfaction and division. It looks like it is going to come down to Rudy and Romney. Those not happy with those choices are trying to tout Huckabee. I've always had a gut dislike for Huckabee and the more I see of him the less I like. Below are just 2 of the latest articles on him detailing some of his problems:

--If You Think Paul is scary, Take a look at Huckabee by Jonah Goldberg
Here is an excerpt:

What's so scary about Huckabee? Personally, nothing. He seems a charming, decent, friendly, pious man.

What's troubling about The Man From Hope 2.0 is what he represents. Huckabee represents compassionate conservatism on steroids. A devout social conservative on issues such as abortion, school prayer, homosexuality and evolution, Huckabee's a populist on economics, a fad-follower on the environment and an all-around do-gooder who believes that the biblical obligation to do "good works" extends to using government - and your tax dollars - to bring us closer to the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth.

For example, Huckabee would support a nationwide ban on public smoking. Why? Because he's on a health kick, thinks smoking is bad and believes the government should do the right thing.

In this respect, Huckabee's philosophy is conventionally liberal, or progressive. What he wants government to do certainly differs in important respects from what Hillary Clinton wants, but the limits he would place on governmental do-goodery are primarily tactical or practical, not philosophical or constitutional. This isn't to say he - or Hillary - is a would-be tyrant, but simply to note that the progressive notion of the state as a loving, caring parent is becoming a bipartisan affair.

Indeed, Huckabee represents the latest attempt to make conservatism more popular. Contrary to the conventional belief that Republicans need to drop their opposition to abortion, gay marriage and the like in order to be popular, Huckabee understands that the unpopular stuff is the economic libertarianism: free trade and smaller government. That's why we're seeing a rise in economic populism on the right married to a culturally conservative populism. Huckabee is the bastard child of Lou Dobbs and Pat Robertson.

Historically, the conservative movement benefited from the tension between libertarianism and cultural traditionalism. This tension - and the effort to reconcile it under the name "fusionism" - has been mischaracterized as a battle between right-wing factions when it's really a conflict that runs through the heart of every conservative.

--The False Conservative by Bob Novak
Some excerpts:

Who would respond to criticism from the Club for Growth by calling the conservative, free-market campaign organization the "Club for Greed"? That sounds like Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich or John Edwards, all Democrats preaching the class struggle. In fact, the rejoinder comes from Mike Huckabee, who has broken out of the pack of second-tier Republican presidential candidates to become a serious contender -- definitely in Iowa and perhaps nationally.

Huckabee is campaigning as a conservative, but serious Republicans know that he is a high-tax, protectionist advocate of big government and a strong hand in the Oval Office directing the lives of Americans. Until now, they did not bother to expose the former governor of Arkansas as a false conservative because he seemed an underfunded, unknown nuisance candidate. Now that he has pulled even with Mitt Romney for the Iowa caucuses and might make more progress, the beleaguered Republican Party has a frightening problem.

There is no doubt about Huckabee's record during a decade in Little Rock. He was regarded by fellow Republican governors as a compulsive tax-and-spender. He increased the Arkansas tax burden 47 percent, boosting the levies on gasoline and cigarettes. When he lost 100 pounds and decided to press his new lifestyle on the American people, he was hardly being a Goldwater-Reagan libertarian.

Rudy may not be perfect but I do think he is our best option. My dream team pick would be Rudy with Fred Thompson as his VP.

HOW THE REPUBLICAN RACE IS SHAPING UP!

For me, it has come down to Rudy and Fred for the Republican nomination. A recent Missouri Poll shows that Missouri Republicans are favoring Rudy first with 21% and then Romney (17%) and Fred (16%) virtually tied for second. We get to vote on Super Tuesday so it will be interesting to see how things will look by then.

It is likely that McCain and Huckabee will have to drop out before Super Tuesday and it will be interesting to see who they will endorse and who their supporters will turn to. It is looking like it will come down to Rudy vs. Romney and if thats the choice then it will be Rudy for me. I've done much thinking, seeking wise counsel and praying and I am convinced that Rudy is the best option if it comes down to him and Romney.

I'm not that concerned about the Huckster because even if he does win Iowa he doesn't have a plan or much of a chance of winning anything after that. I view it as a good thing for him to win Iowa because then it may take some of the steam out of Romney's campaign.

Other related articles and posts:
The Two-Man Republican Race
Steve talks about the latest New Hampshire Polls
Proof Rudy Made a Huge Difference

PROOF RUDY MADE A HUGE DIFFERENCE

• RUDY SAVED NYC.

• THEY SAID IT COULDN'T BE DONE. BUT HE DID IT. DESPITE THEIR OPPOSITION. IT TOOK A TOUGH MAN TO DO THAT. A REAL LEADER.
  

• HE IMPROVED THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR MILLIONS OF PEOPLE. IN A CITY MANY SAID WAS UNMANAGEABLE.

• HE HAD TO BATTLE EVERYDAY TO ACCOMPLISH THIS - THE LEFT, THE DEMOCRATS, THE MEDIA, AND THE NABOBS OF NEGATIVISM.
  
• BLOOMBERG IS ENJOYING THE FRUITS OF RUDY'S LABORS.
  
• IT WAS RUDY WHO DID ALL THE TOUGH LIFTING.
  
• BLOOMBERG HAS NOT HAD TO MAKE ONE REALLY TOUGH DECISION.
  
• AND NOT A SINGLE THING BLOOMBERG HAS DONE HAS IMPROVED THE CITY AS MUCH AS RUDY.
  
• RUDY ACCOMPLISHED MANY BIG THINGS.
• BLOOMBERG HAS NOT ACCOMPLISHED A SINGLE BIG THING.

• WE NEW YORKERS ARE ALL STILL ENJOYING THE FRUITS OF RUDY'S LABORS.
  
• NEARLY 16 YEARS AFTER HE STARTED. WOW.
  

FROM TODAY'S NYTIMES, PROOF THAT IT WAS RUDY, AND NOT NATIONAL TRENDS OR FEDERAL LEGISLATION:

PHILADELPHIA — The day after Michael Nutter won a landslide victory to become this city’s next mayor, he put on a charcoal gray suit and drove to his first public event: the funeral of a police officer shot in a brazen daytime robbery.

Two nights before he announced his choice for police commissioner, two more officers were shot and wounded. When Mr. Nutter takes office on Jan. 7, he will face a crime wave that has left at least 355 people dead so far this year and that gave Philadelphia the highest homicide rate of any big city in the country last year, with 406 killings — more than even New York City, which has six times the population.

Crime is clearly the biggest challenge facing the new mayor. It is also the reason for his surprise victory.

• PHILLY IS ONE A SEVERAL CITIES WHOSE CRIME PROBLEMS HAVE NOT ABATED THE NYC'S HAVE. CITIES IN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA HAVE A GROWING CRIME PROBLEM.
• LOOK AT THE CHART ON THE RIGHT: MANY CITIES HAVE INCREASING MURDER RATES.
• NOT NYC.
  
• NOT SINCE RUDY.
  

• BUT PHILLY'S IS THE WORST: 405 KILLINGS... THATS LIKE SAYING THEY HAVE SIX TIMES THE MURDER RATE OF NYC. SIX TIMES!

• I WISH HIM LUCK.

• HE'D BETTER BE AS TOUGH AS RUDY WAS...

• PHILLY NEEDS A MAYOR AS TOUGH AS RUDY WAS...

WE COULD USE A PRESIDENT THAT TOUGH!

PAT ROBERTSON TO ENDORSE GIULIANI

Big, big news From the Washington Post:

Pat Robertson, one of the most influential figures in the social conservative movement, will announce his support for Rudy Giuliani's presidential bid this morning in Washington, D.C., according to sources familiar with the decision.

Robertson's support was coveted by several of the leading Republican candidates and provides Giuliani with a major boost as the former New York City mayor seeks to convince social conservatives that, despite his positions on abortion and gay rights, he is an acceptable choice as the GOP nominee.

It also slows any momentum for Mitt Romney within the social conservative movement. Romney had recently secured the backing of conservative stalwarts Paul Weyrich and Bob Jones III -- endorsements that seemed to strengthen his bid to become the electable conservative alternative to Giuliani. Romney had made no secret of his desire for Robertson's endorsement and has to be disappointed this morning.

The other major effect of Robertson's support for Giuliani is that it will quiet talk in social conservative circles that nominating Giuliani would lead "values voters" to abandon the Republican Party. The stamp of approval from Robertson should assuage the doubts of many (although certainly not all) of the rank-and-file social conservatives.

Giuliani is, in my opinion, the only Republican candidate who has a real chance of winning. His charisma plays on television, he is in agreement with the electorate on the problems America faces, and we trust that he is sophisticated, and strong, enough to actually do something about those problems.

That is, we trust that he is a doer, not just a talker.

Pat Robertson has made the wise move.

RUDY'S NEW HAMPSHIRE RADIO AD

I think this new ad by Rudy is very good. He is able to show how disastrous government run health care would be by using a personal example from his own life. It is short, sweet and effective.

MY TALK WITH SEAN HANNITY!

When I heard that Dobson was going to be on Hannity's show yesterday I knew I had to call in. Amazingly, I got through pretty quickly. I got to talk to Sean about Dobson and his lack of support for both Rudy and Thompson & his possible 3rd party support. I got to express everything I've talked about here on this blog. At the end Hannity quoted this poll that obviously, has both of us concerned. He said he would convey my comments to Dobson during the interview.

I then listened intently while Hannity interviewed Dobson for about 45 minutes. I'm glad I got through when I did because there were no phone calls during their interview. I have to say that I was extremely proud of Hannity and once again disappointed in Dobson.

Dobson refuses to support Rudy because of abortion and yet when Hannity pointed out the strict constructionist judges and all the moral issues that Rudy stood up for while Mayor of New York, Dobson was not impressed. He also refuses to support Fred Thompson because Thompson supports State Marriage Amendments instead of a Federal Marriage Amendment. I find this to be incredulous. He is willing to almost guarantee Hillary the presidency because of a minor disagreement like that. First of all, a Federal Marriage Amendment is very unlikely. The U.S. Constitution rarely has amendments added to it and for good reason. I'm not against a Federal Marriage Amendment but as long as Thompson is for traditional marriage this isn't worth quibbling over.

Dobson says he will support a 3rd party if either Rudy or Thompson get the nomination. This will be disastrous and almost ensure Hillary a win. My only thought is that even though the poll says that 27% would vote for a nameless 3rd party I'm not sure that would really translate once a 3rd party person was running. It would have to be someone very charismatic and inspiring to get anywhere near 27%. I also think that Rudy might very well be a problem if there is a 3rd party but not necessarily with Thompson. There is no way that people would follow Dobson in his lack of support for Thompson over a difference in federal and state issues.

I would also like to know who this 3rd party candidate is going to be that Dobson would be able to support 100%. When I've looked at Thompson's conservative record the only thing I disagree with him on is his support for the National Endowment for the Arts. You aren't going to find a better candidate than that, especially at this stage of the game.

The other thing that I just couldn't get over was that Dobson thinks that by sabotaging Rudy and Thompson he is going to get one of the 2nd tier candidates to become viable. He said that there were other lower candidates that he might be able to support and who knows what could happen. He has been involved in the political game much longer than I and he knows that is extremely unlikely.

I was proud of Sean because Dobson was somewhat implying that by Sean and others like me being willing to support Fred or Rudy that we were only interested in winning politically. Sean said that couldn't be further from the truth, this was about right and wrong and that he just couldn't allow Hillary to become president for the sake of this country and the moral issues that he holds dearly. To that I say Amen!!

I think that by supporting a 3rd party candidate you will be indirectly electing Hillary Clinton. More babies will be slaughtered during her presidency, marriage will be in more jeopardy and this country will be far less safe, I have no doubt about it.

Someone recently accused me of being willing to vote for someone just because they have an R by their name. That couldn't be further from the truth. I've never supported Specter, Warner, McCain, Hagel or many other Republicans just because they have an R next to their name. It is a worldview and philosophy on life difference. Rudy may be liberal on some issues but he has a drastically different world view than Hillary Clinton. He would pick stellar supreme court justices and would keep this country safe and I do think he would continue to stand up for what is right including moral issues like he did in New York.

Bottom line: those of us who care passionately about moral issues cannot hand the reigns of the presidency over to Hillary. Bill Clinton did a lot of damage in his 8 years. We cannot allow Hillary to do worse just because of disagreements in our party.

RUDY ROCKS!!

I knew about the NY Times Ad that Rudy ran but didn't know about the video ad until I found it at Mike's. Rush was impressed by this also and pointed out how both Obama and Edwards are afraid to attack Hillary so they send their wives out to do it. That really inspires (sarcasm) the American people to believe they'll be able to protect this country when they can't even take on Hillary.

RUDY'S FAMILY PROBLEMS - AND REAGAN'S

Some folks won't stop assaulting Rudy with issues about his personal and family life - as if this would hurt him; (that's their goal, I think).

It's bogus.

We covered it here. (With a HOT jpeg, too. Of Patti Davis Reagan. Who did not hurt her Pop's ratings or ability to lead one iota.)

A TERRORIST'S WIFE LOSES CITIZENSHIP IN TUNISIA

And who might that be? Suha Arafat:

Yasser Arafat's widow Suha lost her Tunisian citizenship, the London-based Al-Quds al-Arabi reported Monday.

Reportedly, the instruction to withdraw Arafat's naturalized status comes from Tunisian President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali.

The Tunisian government did not state a reason for revoking the citizenship, but sources in the justice system said Arafat lost her "moral and material rights."

Arafat, who has been living with her daughter in Tunisia since the death of her husband in 2004, was naturalized in 2006. Al-Hayat, another London-based Arabic daily, reported that Suha Arafat left Tunisia last month. A reason for her leaving the country was not given.

It probably doesn't matter either. All that matters is that she's being punished for being as evil as her horrible husband, now thankfully deceased.

RELIAPUNDIT: I added a pic's of Hillary kissing Suha. At the time, Clitnon was making nicey-nicey to her hubby Arafat; and at the same time, Rudy was DISSING Arafat. WHO WAS RIGHT!? Rudy. And it was not about pandering to the city's Jews: NYC's Jewish population is overwhelminly Democrat and liberal and supported Clinton and Oslo. Rudy was being forthright and principled. Arafat was still a terrorist at the time, and Rudy felt that terrorism should not be appeased.

This alone makes Rudy MORE qualified than Hillary.

MIKE BLOOMBERG IS A JOKE WHO CARES MORE ABOUT TRANS-FATS THAN TRANSPORTS

EVIL GLENN:

PERHAPS MIKE BLOOMBERG SHOULD HAVE WORRIED ABOUT THIS PROBLEM, instead of spending his time on trans-fats:

In a Crisis, Subway Riders Get Little Guidance
Compared with commuters in many of the world’s leading cities, subway riders in New York live in something of an information vacuum once they enter the system’s 468 stations. For decades, riders have regarded their creaking and antiquated subway network as a minor miracle, tolerating frequent delays, cramped stations and malfunctioning public-address systems.

But the storm this week, highlighting yet again deficiencies in how the authority gets information out, seemed to push riders past the limits of their patience.

This is not just a convenience issue, but a safety issue.

posted at 10:22 AM by Glenn Reynolds

The Astute Bloggers have posted on the worthless Bloomberg years before (here and here and here); he's the equivalent of Clinton: all smiles and compassion and soft-socialism with nothing really important accomplished in two terms.

I CHALLENGE ANYONE TO NAME ONE GREAT AND TOUGH THING HE DID FOR THE CITY.

All the tough lifting was done by Rudy. Mike and the city have been coasting ever since.

THE BOTTOM-LINE ON RUDY'S DAUGHTER, OBAMA AND PATTI DAVIS - (REAGAN'S DAUGHTER)

The MSM is trying to do to Rudy what they tried to do to Reagan: turn typically rebellious children into weapons of political sabotage.

By reporting with BLARING HEADLINES that his daughter supports Obama. (More here.) Sheesh.

IT'S UTTER BS.

Patti Davis did not diminish Reagan as a man or as a politician or a statesman.

Neither will Rudy's daughter. Or his Wife. Or his ex-wives.

Nor can their BS about Jeri Thompson diminish Fred. VANITY FAIR is trying to hurt Fred and conservatism, but most people who don't have BDS can see it for what it is.

All it proves is that the Left-wing dominated/pro-Democrat MSM will stoop to anything: leaking national secrets, suppressing improving news from Iraq, hiding non-PC facts, AND SMEARING CANDIDATES WIVES.

They are scum.

THE NEW YORK TIMES' WAR ON NEWSCORP

There's a great quote with an FBI Agent in Curt Gentry's excellent biography, "J. Edgar Hoover: The Man and The Secrets." By now we know what kind of man J. Edgar Hoover was and how he was able to hold onto the Directorship of the FBI for nearly 50 years. An agent said under Hoover it was their job "to find out what he wants and to create the world he believes in."

Now, in the 21st Century, the New York Times has become the J. Edgar Hoover of the MSM. They've pretty much given up all pretense of journalistic ethics and unbiased reporting. No, they won't plainly state, "yes, we're liberals (or "progressives") and we hate conservatism and it's various factions. We're going to do what we can to destroy it and those that don't follow the blueprint of the way we think the world should be, we're gonna take them out," but their actions convey those exact words.

When word came down a few weeks ago that Rupert Murdoch wanted to buy Dow Jones and the Wall Street Journal, it must have been the equivalent of hearing that Voldemort is back in the New York Times building. They were in a panic. They put a group of reporters on the job to find anything damning about Murdoch that could derail the deal. They failed. He got it.

Well, they're not giving up on doing what they can to put as many chinks in the media giant's armor as they can. Drudge is reporting that the Times is now looking into any and all connections between Murdock, Roger Ailes and Presidential frontrunner Rudy Giuliani. Reports Drudge:

Having failed to thwart a Murdoch purchase of the WALL STREET JOURNAL, the NEW YORK TIMES intensifies battle with the NEWS CORP. empire on Thursday, newsroom sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT.

The paper is preparing a provocative examination of Republican presidential contender Rudy Giuliani's relationship with FOX NEWS chief Roger Ailes.

Is this journalism? Many will say, sure it is. It's the job of the media to keep the big boys honest and hold their feet to the fire. True enough, but when you pursue a story with the intention of finding dirt that will damage a certain person's reputation, are you practicing journalism or something else entirely. Yellow Journalism? Not quite. That's scandal-mongering for the sake of scandal-mongering with little concern over who the target will be.

What the New York Times is practicing is pure agenda journalism with the intent to destroy. And why? Because people like Murdoch, Ailes and Giuliani work against the world that the New York Times believes in.

The MSM is out of control, and it's only going to get worse until a massive segment of the public says enough.

THE 2008 ELECTION: RUDY VERSUS JIMMY

No matter who actually gets the nomination from either party, I believe the 2008 election will be between Rudy Giuliani and Jimmy Carter, figuratively speaking.

At it's most basic level, the race will be between a Republican who is a hawk and a Democrat who is a Leftist and dove.

Since 2004 - and the nomination of arch dove and traitor John Kerry - the doves have controled the Democrat Party; the McGovernites have regained the control the DLC rested away from them in 1992. Jimmy Carter now gets a seat of honor at Democrat Conventions. His views and actions have never once been repudiated by a single one of the contenders for the Democrat nomination in 2008.

The polarity between today's GOP and today's Democrat Party is, I think, best illustrated by comparing Rudy to Jimmy:

Jimmy told us our best days were behind us. This was defeatism at home, and a rallying call for Big Government. (Not unlike Hillary.)

Rudy saved a city that many thought was ungovernable and in permanent decline.

Jimmy has appeased tyrants and terrorists - like Arafat and Chavez and Fidel.

Rudy has told them to take a hike - well in advance of the conventional wisdom at the time.

Rudy has NEVER sucked up to Fidel. Jimmy has; Obama would. So would Edwards.

Jimmy has likened the democratic and pluralistic nation of Israel (where Arabs and Muslims havre MORE RIGHTS than any other place ON EARTH) to apartheid South Africa.

Rudy has unequivocally stuck up for Israel.

Jimmy and BJ Clinton APPEASED Kim and North Korea.

Rudy's foreign policy team has not one single appeaser.

Jimmy and his gang of Leftist doves would RAISE TAXES.

Rudy cut taxes in NYC! Unempl0yment and the MISERY INDEX went DOWN, just like under Reagan.

Jimmy cut defense spending - as would the current crop of doves.

Rudy was a hawk on crime - raising the money spent for police (as he cut the size of the bloated liberal bureaucracy) ; he'll be a hawk on defense - AND SPENDING.

Jimmy is financed by the Arabs.

Rudy refused $10 million from them right after 9/11.

THE CHOICE IS CLEAR: WHO DO YOU WANT TO BE THE NEXT PRESIDENT, CARTER OR GIULIANI?






















Here's a video reminder of just how effective and important Rudy was after 9/11:

I live in Manhattan. I was here on 9/11. LET ME TELL YOU: I'd rather have Rudy as President than Jimmy - or any other Democrat - as Mayor. IOW: Rudy - AND ALL OF THE LEADING GOP CONTENDERS - are ready to become the president.

Given the chance, ANY of the Democrat contenders would make AWFUL mayors.

Think about it: The policies of the leftist doves - like Carter and Dinkins and Hillary and Edwards and Obama - couldn't save the city.

The policies of Rudy - and Reagan - did.

Letterman, 9/17/01: "Rudy is the personification of courage"

Watch the whole thing. Again. The Giuliani comment begins at 1:35 in.

THE SWIFT-BOATING OF RUDY GIULIANI?

VIA DRUDGE: SOME FIREFIGHTERS ARE CALLING RUDY A PHONY FOR PROMOTING HIMSELF AS A HERO OF 9/11.

IT COULD HURT HIM.

IT'S SWIFT-BOATING IF IT'S TRUE AND BRINGS HIM DOWN.

WE SHALL SOON SEE...

THE GOP RACE SLOWLY COMES TOGETHER

Things are slowly falling into place in the race for Republican nomination for president. Rudy, while scary to some conservatives, continues to impress many on the Right where there's common ground. Jim Geraghty over at National Review reports on his latest speech covering taxes, terrorism and immigration.

Meanwhile, there's word (though it comes with many denials) that Fred Thompson will make his big announcement next week in Nashville. Either way, I really long for the day when we can get the field widdled down to the three candidates that I'd be happy to see in the White House: Giuliani, Thompson and Romney. I don't mean to disparage many of the well-meaning folks running (except for Ron Paul), but these three are the only ones that stand a chance in a national election and I'd like to see them have an intelligent debate on the issues. Here's hoping in 2008, I'll get my wish.

GIULIANI CRITICIZES THE DEMOCRATS' DESIRE TO SOCIALIZE MEDICINE

AP:

Democratic candidates renewed their calls for universal health care during a debate in South Carolina, saying that a new system would help streamline costs and cover the nation's 45 million uninsured. ...

... Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani on Friday accused his Democratic rivals of embracing health care plans that would amount to socialized medicine.

The former New York City mayor, responding to comments in the first Democratic primary debate Thursday night, claimed Democrats favor "mandatory" universal health care and the plans would only exacerbate the cost of care by putting the system in the hands of bureaucrats.

"They're moving toward socialized medicine so fast, it'll make your head spin," Giuliani said, adding that private solutions could help bring down the cost of care. "When we want to cover poor people, as we should, we give them vouchers."

THE ASTUTE BLOGGERS HAS COMPILED HUNDREDS OF NIGHTMARISH NEWS-STORIES ABOUT SOCIALIZED HEALTHCARE IN THE UK'S NHS.

IT DOESN'T WORK THERE; IT MAKES NO SENSE TO DO IT HERE.

RUDY GETS IT!