The husband opened our conversation yesterday morning as we were going about our early routines with the following: "You'd support Guiliani, wouldn't you?" My answer: "Yes, in a heartbeat."
Nothing will get the blood pumping quicker in the morning than a good question. I have thought about the candidates offering themselves up for presidential nomination and I am intrigued by what I see. It is so early in the political season, and anything can and will happen, so your guess is as good as mine on who will end up with the nominations. I conclude, as of this day, the nominees will be Hillary and Rudy.
I have no problem with the candidacy of Rudy Guiliani. For me, the central, most important issue facing this country is national security and the war on terrorism. Rudy would be a firm, strong leader, as he proved with his leadership after 9/11. He showed calm, steely determination to get that city up and running while continuing to protect its citizens.
To those who say, without the events of 9/11, Rudy would only be remembered as a standard issue to not so great mayor, I say that's nonsense. To those of us who remember the city he inherited from his predecessors, he was a miracle worker. He cleaned up Manhattan when it was sorely needed. Tourists returned to the city in droves as the word got out that Times Square and all the usual tourist spots were once again safe and clean. You'll find it is the Democrats who are bad-mouthing Rudy's performance as mayor. Why? Because a careful examination shows good success. They are worried that early polling continues to show that a race between Hillary and Rudy would provide a Guiliani presidency.
I am an old-style Republican. I am a fiscal conservative and social liberal with a strong libertarian streak. I am pro-choice, pro-death penalty, minimum taxation, states rights, anti-gun control but strongly demand background checks for felons, gay rights supporter, and all about power to the people. I think if a citizen doesn't vote, the right to complain is lost. Don't like what is going on, get out there and work for change.
I refuse to vote on a single moral issue. I have no patience for a potential voter who will not support a pro-choice Republican and stay home on election day rather than protect the country from another Clinton reign. I think a candidate must be viewed in total, not through tunnel vison. I understand all sides of the issue of a woman's choice. My generation of women was at the forefront of the issue. I think we are all human and it is a very personal issue. I don't think the federal government has any business in the decision. It's a states right issue. It's between a woman, her God, and her doctor. Period.
I don't understand the hypocrisy of those who are claiming to be pro-choice yet do not support the death penalty. Is one life more sacred than another?
John Edwards has hired two female bloggers to lead his campaign on the blogosphere. Both women are bigoted, foul-mouthed twits. They put forth screeds of anti-Catholic and anti-traditional family values posts in sharp contrast to the all-American image Edwards is working to promote. He says he has spoken to both women and they have apologized for the previous posts on their blogs. He doesn't plan to fire them now that he is fully aware of their blogging history. Interesting. I was taught that a person is known by the people he/she associates with in life.
If a candidate doesn't have the courage of his basic beliefs on a personal level to stand up to those he views as offensive, than how could that candidate be trusted with the security of our nation against those working for our destruction?