Tag Archive for rudy-giuliani at Zeal For Truth

Tag Archive for 'rudy-giuliani'

Liveblog: The Iowa GOP Debate

Published by Colin December 12, 2007 in Politics. 8 Comments

For the first time, we are going to liveblog today’s GOP debate (before the blog, a long time ago, there was this, this and this). It is the final debate before the Iowa Caucuses. The debate starts at 1:00 EST. Stuck at work? No cable? You like hacks like us? We’re going to bring the action live, with commentary. Tune back here around 2:00pm EST.

1:55 - Welcome everyone. Looking forward to getting this thing started.

1:57 - I wonder if John Cox is still ticked off that he isn’t invited to these debates.

1:59 - I’ll be watching via the fox news stream, where all the candidates seem to be practicing at being statues before the cameras come on. What terrible audio!

2:02 - Thank goodness, no discussion on Iraq.

2:03 - They seem to have a grip on the applause. Another positive. A well disciplined audience gives a lot more time to the candidates.

2:06 - Giuliani says that economic crisis is not a issue of national security - thank goodness. Ron Paul says it is, and ties it to foreign policy.

2:09 - Tancredo miraculously does not tie this question to immigration.

2:09 - Thompson speaks truth - the debt is going to really hurt future generations. Romney decides to sound upbeat and polished. His breathing and pacing is quite measured.

2:10 - Huckabee speaks to his socialistic/protectionst roots: a country is responsible for feeding itself, fueling itself and fighting for itself.

2:11 - Keyes argues to abolish the income tax, replace it with a sales tax.

2:12 - excellent question: what sacrifices should the American people make to relieve debt. Giuliani says its not the American people, it is the government. “Rather than relying on government as a nanny government, we should rely on people to make their own choices”

2:14 - Paul goes to foreign policy again… wow. “No need to sacrifice… we need more liberty!”

2:14 - Huckabee calls current healthcare model “intervention based” - is this a rip off of Paul. Are these geeky libertarian words becoming cool again?

2:16 - The tenor of this debate is so different than other debates. All the candidates sound like radicals compared to their former selves at the start of the campaign. They are demanding to “follow the constitution” and seeking to radically cut taxes and spending. Tancredo right now “don’t ask the government for womb to tomb protection.”

2:18 - Thompson says he’ll run debts for military and infrastructure. The guy that a lot of conservatives loved before he entered, is the biggest left-winger on the stage right now.

2:19 - Question: who is paying more than their “fair share” in taxes?

2:20 - the interviewer tries to interrupt Alan Keyes while he’s bouncing back and forth like a muppet - bad idea.

2:21 - Thompson is quite witty - would like to be rich like Romney so he doesn’t have to care about taxes.

2:22 - Ron Paul talks about the “inflation tax” as the “most evil of all taxes.” Iowa republicans say “wha?”

2:23 - free statement time! Wasn’t this supposed to be a debate. And now a round of commercials from the candidates…

2:25 - Paul asked about keeping foreign markets open while protecting American jobs. Paul talks about opening individual trade agreements, and fixing monetary problems. Again, probably over everyone’s head.

2:27 - Huckabee with another “three things” speech. How simple all our problems are! I’m surprised Huck doesn’t pull out the chalkboard.

2:28 - McCain - “I’m the biggest free-trader” Ha! But then makes a bold point about eliminating subsidies for farms. Guy has gusto!

2:30 - Tancredo: “NAFTA is a disaster” - here he goes on immigration now. Hits up on national sovereignty also. Duncan Hunter, peaked eyebrow and all, “trade deals are business deals between nations” - awesome!

2:32 - Paul: “We have no chance if we don’t restrain the government.” Thomspson talks about how afraid we all should be about terrorists.

2:33 - Thompson fights the host and wins some applause. Anarchy has now broken out. Everyone talks about global warming at once.

2:34 - Giuliani: climate change is real. Everyone else doesn’t want to answer the question, but they all want to speak. Such are the quandries of politicians.

2:36 - Keyes started out with a great moment after the anarchy… then goes on a rant unrelated to global warming. He’s waddling again. He’s unstoppable. Thompson just makes fun of him. Best debate ever!

2:38 - Huckster: “We don’t own this earth.” I think someone just started humming “Imagine.”

2:39 - Huck: “Let the government be the marketplace and we’ll create the demand that lowers the price.” This guy is insane.

2:40 - Tancredo makes the best statement of the season on global warming - the government has no idea how to set mandates, they have no clue what they are doing. I trust the market ore than the government.

2:42 - Huckabee cites the founding fathers. Yes, they really would have loved that last statement on making the government the market.

2:42 - Going to education now. Let’s see if anyone can tie it to terrorism. Go!

2:44 - Giuliani calls current education model a “government command” model. Duncan Hunter tells campfire stories about education as a response. “Let’s inspire them to reach for the stars.”

2:47 - Romney wants the fed to be like his state program - give free tuition to students in the top 25% of graduate exams.

2:48 - Huck says that education should be a state issue, and then says that the federal government. Huckabee says to release “weapons of mass instruction.”

2:49 - Keyes is fighting the host and wins. Get’s 30 seconds, and demands one minute. This lady is going to get fired. Claims he’s being ignored. He uses his time to preach. There goes the bobbing. This guy should never be at another debate again.

2:50 - Back to Paul, who politely waited for Keyes to stop babbling. Wants to get rid ofDept. of Education and give tax credits to teachers and encourage homeschooling. Wants parents to have control again. Very strong answer - first for Paul on the night.

2:52 - Thompson calls out the NEA. Have fun swimming with the fishies!

2:53 - Tancredo gives a strong answer and gets applause attacking Huckabee. Nice one! Huckabee gives back cool word-twist: “communicator in chief.”

2:55 - Romney attacks the Union too, but he’s got an army of Mormons to fight for him. Thompson only has a bunch of actors on his team.

2:57: Duncan Hunter: “The sky is falling!” Talks about all the potential enemies we could have and how we should strengthen the military.

2:58 - Paul, in one year, would end the war and reestablish diplomatic relation.

3:00 - first mention of “radical Islam” - took a whole hour. Astounding!

3:01 - Romney is ready for universal health care. Huck says that the president should be “a president of all the united states.” Does this guy ever say anything of substance?

3:02 - Keyes is probably the only motivational speaker that can hold a flame to Huckabee. Talks over the host again. Still going… Still going…

3:05 - Keyes plugs his “political army of america’s revival.” Only has to be reminded to shut-up once.

3:07 - Video time.

3:09 - Keyes attacks Romney about flip-flopping. Then says that our creator is more important than the constitution. Attacks Giuliani. Is asked to shut-up twice.

3:12 - Thompson says that the intelligence and military has been “neglected” and that is why no one trusts their reports. Says we need to rely on other country’s intelligence.

3:13 - More videos.

3:14 - Huckabee asked about examples in healthcare and education. Guy is quick witted. Takes the golden rule and applies it to health care. Missed the last bit - as my internet broke and is restarting.

3:19 - Tancredo grilled on foreign policy. Says debate can be narrowed to the idea that we can’t leave Iraq, but we can stop being the police-force in Iraq.

3:20 - Paul grilled on how in the world he’s going to do all this stuff. Other candidates laugh. “Freedom is unifying,” says Paul. Claims that he has the ability to unify congress. Me thinks not.

3:23 - New years’ resolution time. Keyes dodges it. McCain asks for unity. Huck says he’ll be careful about what he says. Romney, wants to “come together.” Thompson wants to be a better man. Tancredo actually answers, by saying Huckabee is poor on immigration, Paul says follow the constitution, Hunter says to buy american, and Giuliani says we should have a sense of optimism.

3:25 - Debate is over.

Giuliani is from Mars, Robertson is from Venus

Published by Ornot the Majestic November 21, 2007 in General, Religion, Politics and Current Events. 21 Comments

Felix Ungar and Oscar Madison. Turner and Hooch. Mutt and Jeff. America sure loves the odd couple - it’s obvious. No further proof was needed that opposites indeed attract than when on Nov. 7th, amongst a storm of celebrity presidential endorsements (most non-plussed nor surprising), Pat Robertson announced his support for “America’s Mayor”, Rudy Giuliani.

Rudy Giuliani took a city that was in decline and considered ungovernable and reduced its violent crime, revitalized its core, dramatically lowered its taxes, cut through a welter of bureaucratic regulations, and did so in the spirit of bipartisanship which is so urgently needed in Washington today…

If the thrice-divorced, pro-abortion and pro-gay rights former mayor of New York being backed by the founder of the Christian Coalition of America is something you find a bit odd, well, you should….and not just from the narrow angle of Pat Robertson.

Considering Rudy Giuliani’s rather scathing remarks to Republican Congressman Ron Paul during the South Carolina Republican debate regarding the reasons for the 9/11 attack, five months later he accepts endorsement from a man suggested we invited the 9/11 attacks due to moral degradation (Pat Robertson Quotes).

We have permitted somewhere in the neighborhood of 35 to 40 million unborn babies to be slaughtered in our society. …..We have insulted God at the highest levels of our government. And, then we say ‘why does this happen?’ Well, why its happening is that God Almighty is lifting His protection from us.

Giuliani’s aide reported that the two have “shared goals” despite “minor differences”.

The overriding issue before the American people, is the defense of our population against the bloodlust of Islamic terrorists,” Robertson told the National Press Club audience. “Our world faces deadly peril…and we need a leader with a bold vision who is not afraid to tackle the challenges ahead.”Robertson said Giuliani is “a proven leader who is not afraid of what lies ahead and who will cast a hopeful vision for all Americans … It is my hope and prayer that he will lead the Republican Party to victory in November of 2008.”

“Minor Differences”? My experience with Christian “values voters” often placed abortion at the forefront of the important topics driving vote. Often, pulling hibernating voters from their four-year slumber to sluggishly waddle to the booths, without a hesitant dangling chad to be found in the crowd. But now abortion is a “minor difference”? This article sheds some light on this change:

Abortion is a low priority among Democratic-leaning voters (38 percent) and even Republican-leaning ones (43 percent). Voters overall rate the economy and the war in Iraq as leading issues.

Among Republican-leaning voters, the top issue important to their vote is terrorism with 77 percent marking it as very important. For Democratic voters, the leading issue is health care with 82 percent indicating so.

But wait…terrorism? But Mr. Robertson, I thought you agreed that such evils as pornography and abortion led to 9/11…I guess that core base has shifted. So have you. Irony? Considering the large backlash against John Kerry during the 2004 election over him being a “flip-flopper” and “waffling” on issues, I guess if you flip-flop in all the right directions, it’s not such a bad thing! Either that, or modern-Republicans have a short attention span.

Then again, maybe this is what Thomas Jefferson feared when he wrote this letter in 1802:

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.

As they say, politics makes for strange bedfellows. And compromises. Is this what was envisioned years ago? Perhaps the implications was to not only keep religion out of the state (for freedom of religion purporses), but to also keep the politics out of the church. For if once grievous abominations in the eyes of the moral majority can now become a minor difference, if those pushing for a return to a “Judeo-Christian baseline” will support the perceived “morality” more than the man, whom will the masses follow? Who has become their God now? Is it chasing after power? Is it honoring morality as equivalence to righteousness? Or has the self-proclaimed holy-water been muddied by the hands of agenda. For as power corrupts, are we so blind as to believe that the lust for such power is absent in the holy hands of the politically motivated Christian leader? For this nation, let’s hope history hasn’t been devoid of its lessons.

Christians Should Vote Their Ideals - Not be Partisans

Published by Hungry Sasquatch November 15, 2007 in Religion, Politics and Current Events. 21 Comments

I had this great idea for an article about why we should vote idealistically instead of pragmatically…and then Colin wrote it (read here). He told me I should write mine anyway since there’s a lot to say on the subject, but I suspect he just wants to sue me for plagiarism. So with that irrational paranoia in the back of my mind, I tried to hit on some points he didn’t address.

The Republican/Evangelical Christian alliance
About once a week, I’ll see an article in the paper about how conservative Christians are having a hard time choosing a Republican candidate to rally around. Giuliani is the devil, Romney is a Mormon, etc. The pickings are so slim, evangelical leaders are talking about supporting a third party candidate if they aren’t satisfied with the eventual nominee. The GOP is alarmed by this talk, as it should be: In the 2004 election, one third of republican voters identified themselves as conservative Christians. And how does it respond to this potential crisis? Does the GOP attempt to cater to the concerns of a third of its constituency? No. The repeated cry is, “Don’t support a third party candidate! Then the Democrats will win. We’ll have eight years of Hillary, and you know you would hate that. Voting third party is the last thing you want to do.”

I beg to differ. Why should anyone vote for a candidate who doesn’t represent their views? Why should anyone support a party that casually disregards the things they care most about? Suppose Giuliani wins the republican nomination, and every conservative evangelical who doesn’t actually like him decides to vote for a third party candidate. What happens? Giuliani loses 20-30% of his expected support, the third party candidate gets slaughtered, and a Democrat comes to power for the next four years. The renegade voters may feel like they did more harm than good, but do you really think the GOP will run out another Giuliani for the next election? Not if they have any sense. By being willing to take a short term hit in the name of idealism, Christians (and anyone else, really) CAN bring meaningful change to the system.

Questioning the alliance
The Republican party obviously benefits from evangelical attachment, but is this union good for the Church? As Christians, we are devoted to a higher calling, to a Kingdom that transcends this world. And yet, the church so often seeks power and influence through the Republican party and its “moral emphasis,” to the point where we’ve got way too many eggs in the elephant’s basket. Fortunately, younger generations of conservative evangelicals are growing uneasy with this unholy matrimony. Increasingly, younger Christians consider things like poverty and the environment to be moral issues, areas traditionally emphasized by democrats.

It’s unrealistic to expect all Christians to vote for the same person or care about the exact same set of issues. But what if a substantial percentage stood up and said, “We are people of peace and we won’t support a candidate who wants to keep fighting a war indefinitely. And Jesus taught us to care for the poor, so we will not stand behind a candidate who has no plan for helping them.” If enough of us took a stand like that on the issues that matter most to us, the major parties would be forced to react. At the least, they would be forced to embrace those causes in order to win our votes. And who knows, maybe we can even bring an end to the two-party system that saps our elections of diversity. But none of this can happen if we give into the fear of pragmatism.

Zeal For Truth