Even with the astute navigation by CNN's Wolf Blitzer, the Democrats got away with sheer, unadulterated nonsense about education. One had to see it to believe it: seven eminent individuals and public servants vying with each other on how to best shortchange the educational achievements of the children of America's middle class. One wanted to recruit 100, 000 math and science teachers, as if such entities are available at Walmart for a post-Christmas discount by the bulk. Another wanted to spend 3 billion to install 'arts, crafts, and music' in public schools, as if the Koreans and the Japanese were outclassing our schools because East Asians play better piano and make paper dolls. Yet another wannabe President wanted the federal government to mandate that school teachers make as much money as engineers, giving ample evidence of this candidate's failng high school economics. What they all agreed on, unfortunately, was a resolve to scuttle any of the reforms that are desperately needed by America's elementary, middle, and high schools, and equally desperately opposed by the labor union rackets NEA and AFT which give millions in dollars and volunteer hours to liberal Democratic campaigns each election. Among the reforms needed by America's schools to compete, and thus opposed by the anti-children labor unions and anti-children Democrats:

-the right of parents to spend their educational tax dollars on the school of choice for their children (so much for Democrats being 'pro choice')

-round the year schools like our competitors in Asia and Europe have

-emphasis on basic mathematics, reading, and science rather than on feel good activities

-rigorous testing of both students and teachers to measure achievement and focus resources in problem areas

-merit based pay bonuses for good teachers

-quick firing of teachers who are lazy, unproductive, or who molest children (like Mary Kay LeTourneau and Debra Lafave)

Of course the multi-millionaire Democrats really don't care about middle class children; their own progeny is safely ensconed in elite private academies where standards are high, testing is rigorous, and teachers are accountable. From there the children of the Clintons and Bidens readily go on to Ivy League schools and the rest is history. It is the middle class that suffers the burden of failing schools, rising taxes, and incompetent or patently dangerous teachers...a dastardly mix of affairs vigorously defended by the mobster bosses at NEA and AFT that are in a perpetual coalition of infamy with the liberal Democrats.

The administration is well advised to be both pragmatic and principled in regards to Pakistani dictator Genral Pervez Musharraf. Granted that unlike his predecessor dictators, Musharraf actually did initially liberalize media constrains and acted againt the most blatant forms of religious and gender discrimination. Whether those steps were to curry favor with Washington DC or out of genuine concern for human liberty is a question that is wont to be asked now that Musharraf has pulled a second coup by the book of his predecessors: imposed strict media curbs, 'suspended' the Constitution. physically removed constitutional judges and replaced them by his hand picked lackeys, asserted his right to try civilians under military law,  jailed thousands and so on and so forth.

Secretary of State Dr. Condoleeza Rice is seemingly still ambivalent about the American approach to Musharraf's latest stunt. That is understandable. A look at our history with Pakistani dictators should help in this regard. Everytime we have hugged a dictator to close in Islamabad, be it Ayub Khan in the 60s, Yahya Khan in the 70s, and Ziaul Huq in the 80s, we seemed to have simply created more anti-Americanism in the region. In the case of Ziaul Huq it turned out to be quite deadly as he used our aid to foster groups that would ultimately become the nucleus of the Taliban. Bottomline is that what dictators say and do can be different things..even when the dictator in question is a well dressed, well spoken son of  a former diplomat (General Musharraf's father was a foreign service officer).

Then there is the Pakistan Army, the principal constituency of Musharraf, the prime reason why he is unwilling to take off his uniform. Born with a heritage and set of battle honors second to none, the Pakistan Army's professionalism  deteriorated very quickly once the officer corps got into politics in the late fifties. Since then that army's greatest successes have been the wholescale butchery of its own people: the former East Pakistan in 1971, Baluchistan in 1977, Karachi in 1987-89.  The episode in East Pakistan was all the more galling in that the same Army that slaughtered a million civilians and raped three hundred thousand women (an episode called the 'ugliest genocide in history' by Pakistan's own top journalist Anthony Mascarenhas), surrendered meekly without a fight when faced with real armed opposition...and thus was born the new republic of Bangladesh. The point here is that despite what wonderful things Paksitan's Ambassador in Washington General Durrani says and what Dr. Rice wants to believe, the Pakistan Army is not the reliable fighting force that we fervently hope it is. No military force whose officers spend their time directing politics, business ventures, sporting organizations-as Pakistani Army's senior officers do-is professionally as good as the military which is disciplined and focused on the science of battles. It is no surprise then that after six years of a manhunt in an area the size of Connecticut, Musharraf's half a million man army equipped with the latest electronic equipment the American taxpayer can afford has not been able to get a whiff of where Osama Bin Laden is.

The Pakistan Army, for all its bravado, is simply not upto the task. Nor is its chief it seems. Let's call a spade a spade finally: Pervez Musharraf is a military dictator plain and simple.

Something miraculous happened in Washington DC earlier this week: the Democratic controlled do-nothing Congress actually DID something! With 104 Democrats joining most Republicans, the House of Representatives passed the US-Peru Free Trade Agreement (FTA), partly thanks to one of those rare glimpses of commonsense that Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-NY) has. The measure is flawed in that it puts burdens on Peruvian manufacturers crafted by liberal Washington bureaucrats and their clueless idealistic allies in the feel-good interest groups, ultimately undermining the full benefits of the agreement. But to get any kind of FTA out of a chamber dominated by leftist radicals is a victory for the American people, for American families, for American jobs, and for the indomitable, prolific (he is the father of seven kids..with the same wife), cigar smoking Ohio Representative John Boehner, the Minority Leader. Boehner held off challenges from within the Republican ranks and kept the liberals' feet to the fire at the same time. The coalition against free trade is a large and powerful one, appealing to the emotions of ordinary people. Some such appeals are purely xenophobic (like that of Lou Dobbs who drives a German car by the way), some are born of misplaced frustration (like those of the working families in the industrial belt), and some are fueled by clueless idealism of middle class grad school students doing internships (hopefully not of the Monica Lewinsky kind) in liberal outfits in Washington DC. None of these opponents of free trade have quite analyzed the economic concepts or the historical reality of free trade. Nor do they understand that the freedom to trade and engage in business is a value so deeply American that even the Supreme Court bluntly proclaimed, with the late Justice George Sutherland writing for it, that 'the business of America is business'.
But beyond the conceptual and historical aspects of free trade, there is a more direct and day to day impact of it on American families. Today, families of limited means are able to purchase household and personal goods at Walmart, Target, and Hy Vees across the nation precisely because free trade with China, India, and other countries has broken the monopoly of local manufacturers whose goods could only be afforded by the select few. And by the same token, swathes of regions of chronic unemployment in the ante-bellum South are booming with record employment rates, high wages, new development, and prosperous families because Toyota and Hyundai and others have invested heavily there.
Free trade is about families. It has given ordinary American families with fixed incomes a shot at living the American dream. No clueless intern who has been born into wealth and fed on Ivy League nonsense can understand that; nor can members of Congress who pay any attention to such garbage from the daughters and sons of their donors who are employed in Washington DC as a favor to the said donors.

One has to give Democrats this: they are masters of cognitive linguistics. Earlier this week, the United States House of Representatives passed the misnamed Employer Non Discrimination Act (ENDA) on a largely party line vote, and now the Senate is beginning its work on it too. The President is promised to veto this anti-freedom measure and one hopes he sticks to his principled position.

 

Under the guise of ‘protecting’ the rights of members of the homosexual community, the bill forbids employers of faith and church affiliated organizations from exercising their beliefs in their workplace. Under the bill, for example, private hospitals sponsored by the Roman Catholic and Missouri Synod Lutheran churches will be prohibited from requiring that their employees live up to the their respective codes of conduct. Small business owners who have a moral objection to homosexuality will be forced to hire practicing homosexuals or face tough federal prosecution. The bill, in other words, is a direct assault on the First Amendment and the right of individuals to live their lives according to the dictates of their own conscience.

 

It also shows the rank hypocrisy of liberal Democrats. The people championing ENDA and trying to force their morals on the rest of America are the same ones who never lose an opportunity to lecture the rest of us about how fetal infanticide should be left up to the individual moral compass of each person participating in that grisly act. Pray tell, my liberal friends, why cannot I exercise the same individual moral compass when it comes to who I choose to hire to work for me? Let me guess….hmmm…is it because the lambda lobby gives millions in campaign contributions and unborn children don’t?

 

There is a reason that religious liberty is enunciated in the very First amendment to the Constitution. And ultimately the liberal Democrats’ ENDA makes a brutal frontal assault on that fundamental principle of freedom of conscience. Whether my conscience and religious beliefs prescribe or proscribe homosexuality is not the business of Congress or any state legislature. Nonetheless, repeatedly over the last several years Democratic governors and legislatures from Oregon to Illinois to Massachusetts have attacked the First Amendment rights of religious liberty and free speech. A lower federal judiciary mostly staffed with Clintonite bigots has largely acquiesced to government actions that range from suppressing free speech on Boston streets to forcing Oregon pharmacists and nurses to choose between their faith and their jobs.

 

This is America, a Republic founded by those whose ancestors escaped tyrants that wanted to own their conscience. No man or woman ought to be forced to choose between a conscience and a livelihood. Increasingly under liberal Democratic rule, however, that is exactly what is happening. And if Hillary Clinton becomes president, all the stops will come off.

The Reverend Pat Robertson’s endorsement of Rudy Giuliani only underscores why the former has become so irrelevant and his once vaunted Christian Coalition a shadow of its former self. An avid pursuer of political power and limelight, the Rev. Robertson diverted the energies and resources of a once powerful Christian Coalition towards his media empire while his foot soldiers languished in the last few election cycles. The result is a Christian Coalition that exists on stationery and small office spaces in a few scattered state capitals with no central coordination and none of the education outreach and voter guides that made CC the premier voice of Americans of faith.

This is the value of the endorsement that Rudy gets. And in return I suspect the good reverend is hoping that a future President Giuliani will give him some loudmouthed cushy job to make him, er, a little more relevant, this time on the federal dime.

Ah…and Rudy was claiming that a Giuliani-led GOP ticket could be strong in the secular Northeast. Yeah…wait for the New Yorkers and Connecticut yankees finding out that Rudy is Pat Robertson’s man.

As for Pat Robertson, the scriptures come to mind, “but for a few pieces of silver”.

Robertson is likely to argue, as other semi-conservative pro-Rudy politicos have, that the New York mayor has the best chance of beating a Hillary Clinton in the general election. Most recent polls contradict that hypothesis, pointing out that the strongest anti-Hillary candidate is John McCain. These pols on the Rudy gravy train also mention the former mayor’s pledge to appoint strict constructionist judges. Unfortunately, his record in New York suggests a penchant for appointing ultra-liberal radicals to lower benches. Finally, the pro-Rudy folks, in an almost apologetic tone, claim that a president really cannot do much about social policy issues that we conservatives hold dear. Wrong again because the President can and does set the tone of debate and has the use of executive orders and vetoes at his command. This president has wisely set the tone of a Justice Department that pursues religious discrimination , an area of civil rights understandably ignored by liberals who have nothing but contempt for Americans of faith. Executive orders have been used by President Bush to prevent the Democrats from by-passing the Hyde Amendment in foreign aid disbursement and at military bases overseas. Will a President Giuliani do that? I don’t think so.

All the endorsements in the world will not change the fundamental policy beliefs of Rudy Giuliani, beliefs that the candidate himself has never repudiated. The former mayor of New York, unlike Governor Romney, remains steadfastly opposed to applying the rights guaranteed under the Constitution’s 14^th and 2^nd  amendments to the American people.

Pat Robertson is a man who blamed homosexuals for the tragedy of September 11, 2007. Now he has endorsed a pathologically lying, cheating megalomaniac who exploited that very tragedy for nefariously personal political gain. This is the perfect homophobic-megalomaniac marriage made on K-Street.

And Republicans deserve better. America deserves better.

Well, at least KsReaganite’s.

Of the four top tier candidates for the Republican nomination, the one I admire the most is Senator John McCain. A genuine war hero with decades of experience in foreign policy crafting and a largely consistent voting record, McCain is a respected commonsense conservative who is very competitive in every state against any Democrat.

I am afraid, however, that he will never reach that point. My research and instinct convinces me that the only candidate who has a viable shot of denying the Rudy Giuliani the nomination is Governor Mitt Romney, a man whose changing convictions have prompted more than one post on this blog in the past. As a veteran of the Dole’96 and Bush’00 campaigns, I can see only one path to stop Mayor Giuliani: the same candidate scoring wins in IA, NH, SC in a row and then using the momentum to make a stand in FL where Giuliani is leading big right now. Mitt Romney is the only candidate who has the numbers, money, and organization to pull that feat off. As an added bonus his family roots and business connections make Romney well poised to do well in the early contests in Nevada and Michigan

While I am very uncomfortable with Romney’s rather recent change of heart on key issues, the authenticity of his ‘conversion’ is seemingly attested to by true blue heavyweights like Paul Weyrich and Jay Sekulow. This is where I have to do my due diligence but leave it as  “for God knows what is in the hearts of men”, as the Scriptures say. I will thus accept that Governor Romney means it when he says he now believes in protecting all children, preserving the Second Amendment, and vigorously opposing special privileges for any special interest group.

So, with a profound apology to Senator John McCain and those who rightly admire that American hero, KsReaganite does endorse Governor Mitt Romney for the GOP presidential nomination. Unique among today’s politicians in having been married once and staying faithfully  married to that one spouse, Romney’s personal life is above reproach, setting an example of leadership for all and sundry. His outreach to all three segments of the Republican coalition-economic, social, and defense-bodes well for recreating an inclusive party and his financial resources give him the tools to do so.  The man is telegenic, wealthy, and energetic, three key qualities in a competitive candidate of the 21^st century. He can beat the Giuliani-Hillary duo.

Give him that chance.

Some weeks ago I had written about predator teachers in public schools and their allies in the teachers unions and Democratic controlled state legislatures. Now, partly spurred on extensive reporting by NBC, states from Maine to Missouri to California are initiating proposals to make it easier to identify, publicize, and discipline teachers who prey on children. Understandably, the opposition to these proposals is coming from the National Education Association (NEA) teachers union, the bureaucrats at the teacher licensing commissions, and the Democratic majorities in the legislatures of ME, MO, and CA. Bureaucrats are naturally protective of their turf while Democratic legislators are elected largely through money given by the NEA. Thus this alliance to protect predators is a natural one.

The Democratic Party claims to be the party that cares for children and, I am sure, most ordinary Democrats do. But looking at the robust Democratic alliance with the NEA and Planned Parenthood, both organizations dedicated to protecting child molesters, one has to wonder whether the party of Franklin Roosevelt does indeed have the interests of American children at heart. A party that actively collaborates with the allies of child predators does not actually look like pro-children to me.

And I sure hope Hillary’s ‘village’ to raise children does not include the NEA and Planned Parenthood.

‘Karma’ is one of those quintessentially Eastern mystic concepts bandied about, mostly as a matter of uneducated rhetorical flourish, by hippie type liberals. It can affect powerful self-proclaimed conservatives as well, as French president Nicholas ‘Sarky’ Sarkozy has recently found out. When he rudely (well, he is a Frenchman after all!) walked out of the Leslie Stahl interview earlier week, most American viewers wondered what he was hiding about his personal life.

 

There is not really much hiding going on. As almost everyone knows in Europe, Sarkozy’s wife Cecilia has abandoned him for another man and a divorce is in the works. She had pulled the same stunt two years ago with the same ‘other’ man but apparently a reconciliation was worked out in time for the French general election. Not anymore. Sarky is left all by his poor self for good, it appears.

 

And I don’t feel an iota of sympathy for Monsieur Le Presidente. Let me tell you why.

 

More than a dozen years ago, as a municipal judge, Sarkozy was honored with the officiating role at the wedding of a good friend and his bride. Before the signatures on the marriage certificate were dry, by his own admission, Judge Sarkozy had lust in his heart for the new bride, his friend’s wife. For two years he hounded this couple ceaselessly ,and finally managed to break up his friend’s home (which by then had an innocent one year old child) by whisking away the wife. A few months after that, he married that woman himself. With friends like this…….That woman is now known as Cecilia Sarkozy.

 

Nicholas Sarkozy richly deserves the humiliation, the pain, and the abandonment that he once was instrumental in visiting upon a close friend. As for the soon to be former first lady of France, well she will be much more at home in certain districts of the neighboring Dutch capital Amsterdam.

The college campuses of the great state of New York have, of late, become platforms for the international Bush haters. Last month it was Mahmoud Ahmedinijad at Columbia. Last week it was Irene Zubaida Khan, the hyper-active president of Amnesty International (AI), at SUNY-Buffalo. That’s all good for free speech.

 

But Amnesty International is not exactly non-discriminatory about free speech. Or for that about matter anything else. It considers internet surveillance under the Patriot Act unconscionable but has no comments about the wholesale banning of websites by Syria’s Dr. Bashar Asad.

 

Don’t get me wrong; I have tremendous respect for the lofty principles of AI and was actually a member of the same during my freshman and sophomore years in college. But the fact is that like many other well-intentioned humanitarian organizations, AI has become progressively anti-American and anti-Israeli and largely selective about advocating decent treatment of human beings irrespective of their domicile. And during the presidency of Ms. Khan, a London lawyer of Bengali origin, this selectivity of conscience has become only more pronounced. Not that any of this is surprising; like most other first- or second generation immigrants with a modest education, Irene Khan has tried to out-liberal the liberals and out-left the Left in order to feel that she has ‘arrived’. Hence the constant conference, seminars, letter writing campaigns about Gitmo, the Patriot Act, rendition, and Palestinian criminals in Israeli jails. And nothing but a mere paragraph or footnote about the brutal dictatorships of Castro, Asad, and Khameini,  or about those who have disappeared in the maze of mini-jails run by Hamas and Hizbollah in Gaza and Lebanon.

 

Amnesty International, following the footsteps of so many other once-respectable organizations like the NEA, NOW, Sierra Club and Planned Parenthood, has abandoned its principles to become just another handmaiden in the service of the Liberal-Left.

So Tom Tancredo has seen the light, but one has to give the fellow marks for sheer chutzpah. The Colorado Congressman, who is running for President, has decided he simply does not stand much of a chance to get re-elected to Congress from his own district. Given the fact that he polls no more than one percent in national polls and about twice as much in IA and NH, chances are pretty good that come January 20, 2009, he will not be inaugurated as our President either. Good riddance for Colorado, good riddance for America, and good riddance for the Republican Party.

 Few House Republicans are so entirely unversed in international trade and so thoroughly clueless about  political demographics than Tancredo, a former bureaucrat turned opportunistic xenophobe. Nor are too many of his colleagues so apt to regularly suffer from foot-in-mouth disease.  And even in an inherently hypocritical profession as elective politics, Tancredo has a place of his own when it comes to speaking from both sides of his mouth. None of his appearances go without his boldly mentioning that he is a “Christian” and that Jesus is his “personal Savior and Lord” while displaying marked hostility to the Bible’s clear commandment  “The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.” (Leviticus 19:34). In that respect, Italian-American Tom is no different than Italian American Rudy who, while claiming to be a pious Roman Catholic, advocates that the Constitution’s equal protection clause does not apply to vulnerable children.

 

Little do they learn, even from an event as close to memory as the 2006 general elections when Republicans lost their majorities in both chambers of Congress. In an analysis of competitive races (those won or lost by within 5 % points) it was seen that not a single Republican who held to compassionate conservatism on life and immigration lost to a Democrat who did not. But the harshest Republican advocates of abortion on demand and immigrant bashing fell like nine pins across Arizona, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and Ohio.

 

And so next year Tom Tancredo will join their ranks. So long the Honorable Gentleman from Colorado. Except that there is little honorable and nothing gentlemanly about this guy.

I am not particularly fond of Senator John McCain's politics all the time. His occasionally mercurial temper, the shoddy circumstances of his second marriage, his gratutious insults towards religious conservatives some years ago, and his sponsorship of the infamous McCain-Feingold.....the list of negatives is not short. Heck, I worked against the man in the 2000 presidential primary season.

But when little people like the xenophobes question McCain's love of country, it offends me. When uneducated buffoons who have never seen combat from a ten mile distance claim to know more about valor and torture than the war hero of POW John McCain, that simply goes to show the empty ego of such buffoons. Whether it is Tom Tancredo, Pat Buchanan, or one the several self-proclaimed 'grass roots' conservatives, what unites the loudest detractors of McCain is their littleness in comparison to McCain's greatness.

For after all is said and done, John McCain is a war hero who has sacrificed more for this Republic than all the other presidential candidates and their smooth-talkers combined several times over. He is a public servant whose conservatism is a matter of record on most key issues: trade, taxes, sanctity of life, sanctity of marriage, defense, Second Amendment, public spending. On the two issues that he is not lock-step with the grassroots conservative movement-immigration and campaign finance-he owns up to his views and, unlike most other politicians, makes no effort to flip flop.

I have worked against this man once and may do so again. But nothing takes away from the fact that this is a decent, principled, honorable servant of this Republic who deserves our respect and gratitude.

Michael Medved seems to have been bamboozled by Rudy Giuliani as well. In his piece in the USA Today, he turned apologetic for Rudy’s anti-life stance by claiming that the former mayor stood where most of Americans did, that is, in Medved’s words ‘anti-abortion, pro-choice’. For a rather intelligent fellow, Medved certainly has forgotten that the ‘personally this, but..’ line is tired cliché that doesn’t sell anymore even in the Northeast. That is like saying that I am against slavery but pro-choice on slave-owning rights…an argument used by Southern liberals in the 1840s and 1850s, and thoroughly discredited by logic, rationale, not to mention ethics.  Beyond the apologia, Mr. Medved lied through his teeth about one particular aspect of abortion and Giuliani: contrary to fact and oft-stated position of the former New York mayor, the Medved article stated that Giuliani opposes taxpayer funding of abortions.

 

In case Mr. Medved wants to know where most Americans do stand on the issue, all he has to do is look at any credible source of polls. Once it is explained to them that Roe vs. Wade does not allow for ANY restriction on abortion on demand, a plurality of Americans claim themselves to be pro-life and anti-Roe…and that is not ‘personally’ pro-life but pro-life period. Furthermore, and perhaps more important, vast majorities of Americans strongly support parental consent and waiting periods while opposing taxpayer funding and interstate transportation of minors. Unfortunately, state efforts to reflect the will of the Americans people have been consistently thwarted  by activist, unelected, tyrannical judges.

 

I actually deeply respect individuals who openly and unapologetically claim to be pro-choice, without ifs, ands, buts. Their basis of argument is something I disagree (in that they believe the fetus to be a mere blob of tissue and I believe it to be a human being with a unique DNA) with,  but their rationale and logic are very sound. That is a far cry from intellectual pygmies who want to be personally this, publicly that, and ultimately, well, vacuous nothings. Having the same beliefs in private and in public..hmmm..there is a word to describe that phenomena in the English language. It is called INTEGRITY.

Now even a liberal outlet like MSNBC is running a big story on predator teachers. Thrice in the article there is mention of unnamed 'teacher unions' who protect such child molesters. Of course, it would be too much for the liberal elite, whose kids go to safer private schools anyway, to call the NEA and AFT to the mat and call them what they are: labor rackets whose sole aim is to use children to find comfortable careers without accountability and with four months of annual vacation (and please..enough of that 'teachers make so little money' bs that is simply not true: they make fairly decent living in most states and work only eight months a year without any performance benchmarks). The article also mentions two states where even convicted child molester teachers do not lose their teaching licenses-and hence the ability to move somewhere else to teach once they get out of jail. It will not surprise anyone that those states are Maine and Hawaii, two states with heavily Democratic legislatures in the pockets of teachers unions. Everytime I hear these Democrat candidates wail and whine about being 'for the children', I have to wonder about the adage of the first Republican president that 'you cannot fool all the people all the time'. From its very fundamentals, it is hard to imagine the Democratic party of today being anything of a friend to children. Its embrace of the biggest defenders of child molestation-ACLU, NEA, Planned Parenthood, and AFT simply underlines its contempt for children, specially the children of the working class.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21392345/
Next time, someone ought to ask Hillary how much money has she taken from unions that protect child predators. Let's see what Ms. 'I love the children' answers to that.

That Rudy Giuliani is a Liberal with a capital L is not just mere hyperbole and political wordsmithy. He was the mayoral candidate of the New York State Liberal Party-yes, the state of New York has an actual Liberal Party made up of left socialists and RINOs-on three occasions. Thus, during each of the time that Rudy was the GOP’s nominee for mayor of New York City, he also actively sought and received the nomination of the Liberal Party (New York law allows the same person to be nominated and listed on the ballot by multiple parties).  The Liberal Party of New York (LPNY), whose nominee Giuliani was on multiple occasions, is a far left party that considers the Democrats to be ‘conservative’. You see, LPNY advocates socialized medicine, drastic reduction in military spending, high marginal and capital gains tax rates, taxpayer funded abortion till the day of delivery (and probably afterwards too), and obeisance to the United Nations on foreign policy matters.

 

Now tell me again, how is Giuliani a ‘conservative’? Just because a non-entity Governor of Texas wants a cushy job in a future Giuliani administration?

The following story in today's MSNBC sums up so many horrors of  the liberal crafted modern American society: a litigation happy culture, preferring style over substance, cluelessness about the concept of marriage, and the utter foolishness of letting New Yorker city folks lead America.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12784368/?GT1=10450