NOW IT'S A HORSE RACE!

Alright! Now we've got a horse race! The results of the Florida primary are in and we've narrowed the field. John McCain narrowly defeated Mitt Romney, while Hillary trounced Barak Obama. These results prompted Rudy Giuliani to drop out of the race, throwing his support to McCain, while John Edwards threw in the towel and has not endorsed anyone at this writing.

Unfortunately, for both winners, this was a pyrrhic victory at best.

Hillary may have won in Florida, but to what avail? The Democratic National Committee had already declared Florida's primary null and void, since the state moved its primary date up before February 5th. In true Clinton form, Hillary is now trying to back out of that agreement and wants the delegates awarded to her.

Let's say that Hillary succeeds in her bid to aquire the Florida delegates. Add this insult to the injury of playing the race card against Obama. How will the black vote, reliably Democratic, be affected? Would it be unreasonable that many would think that the white candidate effectively did an end run around the black candidate? What would that do to Hillary's image as the wife of "The First Black President", as Toni Morrison so famously dubbed Bill? Don't forget what Hillary did to Carl McCall in New York, effectively ending his burgeoning political career for her own Senatorial aspirations. Once again, it seems, the Democratic Party is going back to its segregationist roots to marginalize a viable black candidate.

Apparently, the Democratic Party is incapable of truly representing the black vote, taking their near monolithic support completely for granted. They can only lie about Republican policies and make ever emptier promises to do better than the last time blacks supported them. One can only hope that, sooner or later, people wake up to the institutional racism of the Democratic Party. I, however, will not hold my breath. I'd thought I'd seen the cracks before, only to find out they were minor and quickly healed.

And where does John Edwards (he of the silky locks and womanly charms) throw his support? After all, he is the leading candidate of the Trial Lawyers. Granted the Trial Lawyers will be happy with any Democrat. But would they be better off with Hillary or Obama? This will be very interesting to watch.

For the Democrats, we have the spectacle of watching two of their premeir identity political groups facing off against each other. It's kind of fun watching the Feminists cry foul when Ted (It took nine hours to open a lady's car door) Kennedy endorsed Obama. Similarly, we find the Old Guard of the Civil Rights Movement line up behind Hillary, while Oprah stumps for Obama. Perhaps it's time for me to revisit "Through Race Colored Glasses".

Speaking of Uncle Ted, it's been said that his word is gold among Hispanics. Would this hurt Hillary's chances further than an erosion of black support? Don't you just love when Political Correctness and identity politics run into themselves in such a spectacular fashion

Many on the Left seem to be tiring of the nefarious methods of the Clintonistas. Even the Legacy Media has taken to pointing out the misdeeds of Bill and Hillary. Bill's astounding claim that he never supported the Iraq war was too much even for those Liberal sycophants. His red-faced, finger wagging tirades on the stump for his putative successor are getting rightful criticism from all sides as well.

Still, the Legacy Media downplays the internecine fighting, the callous gender and racial attacks, to focus on "The Demise of Conservatism". To help that along, they have shamefully attacked the Mormon faith on every show, from newscasts to historical documentaries. Then they downplayed Mike Huckabee's Christianity, since his Liberal ideals are more in tune with their own.

Meanwhile, ponder this: if Conservatism is on the decline, why, then are both McCain and Romney trying to claim the Reagan mantle? Why, in his victory speech, did McCain preposterously state that he "is the Conservative who can unite the Republican Party"? Furthermore, his aides are telling anyone who would listen that McCain is going to "do outreach" to Conservatives. Why would that be necessary if Conservatism is in decline?

Let us consider CNN's exit polls, as interpreted by blogger Joshua Trevino:

Romney won pro-lifers.
Romney won the mainstream religious. (Huckabee won
the very religious--less than one-fifth of the pool.)
Romney won the Protestants.
Romney tied Huckabee with Evangelicals.
Romney won the pro-GWB voters.
Romney is the primary second choice of Giuliani voters,
Thompson voters . . . and McCain voters.
Romney won the immigration hard-liners.
Romney won the upper-middle class, earning between
$100,000 and $200,000 annually.
Romney won the terrorism-oriented voters.
Romney won the self-identified conservatives and the self-identified
very conservative.
Romney won the values-oriented voters.
Romney won the white voters.
Romney won the tax-cutting voters.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't these the same issues Conservatives are most concerned about? How, then, can McCain claim to be "the Conservative Candidate"?

Here's another question: Why is Mike Huckabee, with no money and not even placing in the primaries, still in the race? Mark Levin makes a convincing case that there is a deal in the works. Huckabee siphons off enough of the Christian and social Conservative votes from Romney and, in return, McCain makes Huckabee the Vice Presidential candidate in November. I can find no fault in this reasoning, since Romney's and Huckabee's votes (as evidenced by CNN's exit polling) combine to be a decisive defeat for McCain in Florida.

Rudy Giuliani has become a real disappointment to me. Beyond the fact that his campaign strategey (putting all his eggs in the Florida basket) was flawed, he further showed that his Conservative bleatings on the campaign trail were nothing more than pandering. This is demonstrated by his immediate endorsement of McCain. After all, Rudy and McCain share much the same disdain for Conservatives. I point you to their careers in elective office. McCain voted against every tax cut that came before him. Rudy supported Mario Cuomo and Mike Bloomberg in New York, two very prominent Liberals. McCain wanted to turn America into a "sanctuary city", just as Rudy did with New York City. Both have been very Liberal on social issues, swinging to the Right only in this election cycle.

Similarly, the disappointing Arnold Schwarzenegger is expected to endorse McCain. I guess that Arnold, being a Kennedy by marriage, has finally drunk the Kool Aide. I would be surprised if, in the near future, Arnold leaves the Republican Party, a la Mike Bloomberg.

Speaking of Bloomberg, there are still rumblings about his possible third party candidacy for the White House. Hmmm... It's almost as if there were a conspiracy out there...

Well, perhaps there is! After all, the Republicans have their elites, just as the Democrats. These "blueblood", so-called "Rockefeller" Republicans are better known among Conservatives as RINOs, though they would probably prefer the title "Establishment". They were never comfortable with Conservatives, as evidenced by the 1976 primaries, when they blocked Ronald Reagan and we got stuck with Jimmy Carter. These are epitomized by folks like Christie Todd Whitman, who famously wrote the whiney tome. "It's My Party Too!" Both of the Bush's are of this ilk, as seen by their rather more Liberal policies. These folks aren't comfortable with any true Conservative. They are the purveyors of "Comprhensive Immigration Reform", expanded entitlements, higher taxes and Democarat-Lite social policies. Hence, their support for McCain and their disdain for Romney.

So what do we have? We have a Liberal Republican garnering the support of the "Rockefeller" wing of the GOP, using a Liberal evangelical Christian to siphon off votes of the more Conservative candidate, to drive a stake into the true base of the Republican Party, the Conservatives.

I dunno! I think I may have to rethink my party affiliation!

Copyright Jan. 30th, 2008

RUN, RUN, RUDY!

This is another column that I have to get in before it's too late. Rudolph Giuliani, America's Mayor, and presidential candidate. A tough prosecutor, a miracle-working mayor, successful businessman and a lawman's lawman, there is a lot to like about Rudy.

Leaving the Democratic Party after the 1970's Rudy began his journey to the Right -- some might say he was maturing -- as a prosecutor in the Southern District of New York, eventually becoming a US attorney.

New York City, in the '70's and '80's, had become increasingly dysfunctional. Crime and police corruption kept getting worse, taxes were increasing at ever higher rates, race riots were a common summer pastime, "the Bronx was burning", businesses and the middle class were leaving in droves. By the late 1980's, New York was considered, by the smart money, at least, ungovernable. One mayor after another had left New York worse or, at best, the same as when they got there.

In 1989, Rudy Giuliani narrowly lost the mayoralty to David Dinkins in a hotly contested race. David Dinkins then went on to turn a dire situation into an abyss. Dinkins presided over one of the worst periods in New York History. Racial tensions hit a new low, riots were allowed to "run their course", drug dealers slain in police shootouts were given City-funded funerals, police were treated worse than the thugs, businesses were left to the tender mercies of protesting mobs, and the taxes just kept getting higher and higher.

Giuliani finally won the election in 1993, despite being branded as a "fascist" by the Left in New York. Almost overnight, Rudy turned the City around. His approach to crime was known as "the broken window theory". If a building has a broken window, and no one fixes it, it is only a matter of time before more of the windows are broken. Same as with crime. If we let the little pathologies go unpunished, bigger pathologies would soon follow.

Rudy began with the infamous New York "squeegee" men, panhandlers who would "wash" your car's windows with questionable water and demand payment. These he summarily banned from the streets. Next were the turnstile jumpers in the subways. Of complete surprise to Liberals all across the nation, these turnstile jumpers were also carrying guns, knives, drugs, and outstanding arrest warrants. Then there were Gotti fireworks shows, the loud radios and public drinking, clearing the parks of drug dealers and users, cracking down on public nuisances, and a total restructuring of the police department. Suddenly, crime dropped. It kept on dropping. In fact it is still dropping, more than a decade after his election.

Racial tensions soon became more a matter of partisan politics than a boiling over of the streets. His crime reductions meant that fewer blacks and minorities were killed by the criminals, and his riding herd on the police reduced the number of people killed by police in the line of duty. Riots suddenly stopped. Folks started to actually walk around their neighborhoods at all hours of the day and night, getting to know their neighbors.

On economics, Rudy cut the the City taxes for the first time in decades. More importantly, he froze or cut the budgets of every department but the police. Unions screamed, the police (who got no pay raises) cried foul, and welfare clients got jobs. For that was something else that Rudy did that was unthinkable: Rudy demanded and got fingerprint identification for all welfare clients. Suddenly, the enrollment in welfare programs dropped to half of what it was.

The defining moment for Rudy Giuliani was the attack on 9/11. Rudy's performance in the days following the attack cemented his reputation as "America's Mayor". His leadership brought us through the worst disaster in history.

Indeed, there is much to admire about Rudy Giuliani. He is a strong leader who can get Conservative things done, even with a Liberal legislature. He is phenomenal on issues of crime. And he has a clear vision of America and her enemies that, frankly, all the Democrats sorely lack.

And yet... you know you smell a "but"!

Yes, I know that Rudy cleaned up Times Square. The "Crossroads of the World" had seen better days by 1993. The great theaters and movie houses had given way to X-rated movies, peepshows, porn shops, prostitution, and drugs. It was rapidly plunging deeper into squalor as each day passed. Times Square today is bright and cheerful. Gone are all but vestiges of the sociopathology that made Times Square a dangerous, at best, place. In its place are fine family- oriented attractions, huge, brilliantly lit displays, and throngs of happy (not wary) visitors.

The downside is how this was all accomplished. Giuliani, first of all, rezoned much of the area, making it difficult for the adult entertainment industry (that doesn't sound right!) to take root. With existing establishments, he used the practice of eminent domain to seize properties, which were then handed over to entities such as Disney and the Hard Rock Cafe. This practice gained notoriety in 2005 with the Kelo decision of the Supreme Court, which narrowly held that property owned by one individual can be confiscated by local government and handed over to another private entity if it would "further the common good" of the community.

My Libertarian streak just spasms when I hear about such practices. Sure, eminent domain is a useful tool. But it should never be used to aquire property from one private entity and give it to another. There lies far too many opportunities for mischief by our government officials.

Social issues, too, are an Achilles' Heel for Rudy Giuliani. Whatever his virtues, he is simply wrong on far too many matters important to most Conservatives. He is extremely Pro-Choice, even advocating government funding for abortions. For all intents and purposes, he turned New York City into a "sanctuary city", ordering City officials to no cooperate with the INS. And he was far too comfortable with the Gay Rights crowd. His social Liberalism, in my mind, would have made his fiscal conservatism rather suspect, since I find it hard to square the one with the other.

To be fair, let's stipulate that Rudy has campaigned on appointing strict originalist judges in the mold of Clarence Thomas, Sam Alito, John Roberts, and Antonin Scalia. After all, the president is far more removed from social issues than governors or mayors. It is the courts, in fact, where the real battles in the Culture Wars are to be fought and won. Originalist judges are the weapon of choice.

Outside of the Tri-state Area, all these negatives would have made Rudy problematic for the Conservative base, although his successes garnered him much praise. And, all his negatives aside, he would still be a far better president than either Barak Obama or Hillary Clinton. Still, his name recognition and his fame for "governing the ungovernable City" makes him a much more known quantity than any of his Republican opponents.

Unfortunately, the Giuliani campaign never seemed to connect with the voters. Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina -- all have failed to see Rudy garner more than single digits in the polls. Now, as the candidates are starting to drop out, he has put all his chips on Florida.

Florida should have been a good state for Giuliani. It's reasonably Conservative, although his social Liberalism wouldn't raise too many eyebrows. It is very rich in delegates, having a large population. And it is populated by many, many New Yorkers who've moved there to retire. But it doesn't seem to be working out that way. Recent polls show that Rudy is dropping into an ever more distant third place in Florida.

As if that weren't enough, should Giuliani get the Republican nomination, it looks like he would lose New Jersey, of all places. All the smart money would have sworn that New Jersey, being New York City's bedroom, so to speak, would be a lock for Rudy. But then, maybe that money isn't so smart after all.

Slipping and fading, Rudy looks to join the ranks of the also-rans. But he might still pull a rabbit out of his hat. He still might get the nomination, although that is looking increasingly unlikely. Still, the Conservative faithful wonder, how glorious would a death match between Hillary and Rudy be? It would be, for political junkies such as myself, a battle royale! The Mother of All Elections.

I doubt it, but it still might happen. Stranger things than that have happened in presidential politics. Perhaps, in an alternate universe...

Copyright Jan. 24th, 2008