Rudy and the New York Times Endorsement

I probably never did anything the New York Times suggested I do in eight years as mayor of New York City. And if I did, I wouldn't be considered a conservative Republican.

I changed welfare. I changed quality of life. I took on homelessness. I did all the things that they thought make you mean, and I believe show true compassion and true love for people.

I moved people from welfare to work. When I did that, when I set up workfare, the New York Times wrote nasty editorials about how mean I was, how cruel I was. I think there's a serious ideological difference.

- Rudy Giuliani at the debate on Thursday night.

Despite the many disagreements we have had with the Mayor over the last four years, we endorse his re-election enthusiastically.

- The New York Times Editorial Board, October 26, 1997.

New poll & mini film fest: When will Rudy drop out and endorse McCain ?

New poll question.
Back when his poll numbers were in double digits, Rudy was in the habit of saying this:



Well, now's your chance Rudy.

And just imagine, a few months back we were hearing rumors of this:



Hmm, interesting metaphor there Chris. Of course we all know how that story turned out.



Oh and Fred, when you get around to it, how about getting back to this:




. . . And finally, here's something for those whose participated in our last poll question: "What has been most annoying about FOX's GOP primary coverage ?"
Your response -

When Taxpayer-Funded Insurance Turns Catastrophic

Rudy Giuliani keeps touting his plan for National Catastrophic Insurance. It's supposed to help people out in case of catastrophe, but I wish someone at the debate last night had asked this:

Could this sort of tax-payer funded insurance actually worsen the results of a hurricane by creating perverse incentives for developers to build in high-risk areas, while damaging the ecological integrity of natural barriers such as barrier islands, dunes and wetlands?

Former congressman Tom Evans of the Florida Coalition for Preservation this summer wrote:

Action is needed at the federal and state levels to better protect taxpayers from paying the tab for irresponsible coastal development that damages the environment and endangers our citizens.

When President Reagan signed the Coastal Barrier Resources Act in 1982, which I had the honor of sponsoring in the Congress, we told developers point-blank that "if you develop on these fragile barrier islands, you should do so on your own nickel and not the American taxpayer." In that spirit, Congress should consider expanding the Coastal Barrier Resources Act to eliminate all federal subsidies, including federal flood insurance or transportation funding, going to high-density developments on storm-prone barrier islands where such development explodes the population of a small area and dangerously stresses the surrounding infrastructure.

State lawmakers also have an important role. They should enact a policy similar to the Coastal Barrier Resources Act and ban state subsidies to new construction on barrier islands where such new construction greatly increases the population density of a small area.

If Florida truly wants to pave the way for a national catastrophe fund to spread the risk of natural disasters across the country, the state should lead by example. The state undermines the credibility of its argument when it continues to use taxpayer dollars to sanction and subsidize ill-advised barrier island developments in hurricane alley. Continuing this practice will likely alienate residents of inland states who could question why taxpayers in Peoria, IL, should assume the risk of building new oceanfront condos in South Florida destroyed by seasonal hurricanes.

If Floridians want inland states to throw in their lot with them and pool their insurance catastrophe risk in a national fund, we must prove that we are responsible enough to limit new development to risk-appropriate locations.

Now in the 2007 hurricane season, we must realize that our barrier islands are not those places. We must not play Russian Roulette with people's lives and property. Unfortunately, that's exactly what we do when we put people in harm's way on vulnerable barrier islands. And that's no place for us to use limited taxpayer resources.

Writer's Strike Affects South Carolina FOX debates

At least it seems that way - Haven't we heard these questions before?

Haven't we heard so many of these answers before.

The Big News of the Day: Bush believes Palestinian/Israeli peace is close at hand, but gets short shrift from "moderators." (Can you call them "moderators" when they keep egging-on the candidates going against each other?) Rudy and Ron Paul are asked about it, but no one else.
Some discussion of Pakistan.

On the other hand, plenty of the old standards - Iraq, economy, immigration.

On economy, candidates talk like they think they are in Michigan.

Mitt thinks we can bring old jobs back from the dead, McCain wants to retrain workers for the economy of the future.

Thompson shows some spunk, can't get in enough criticisms of Huckabee.

Huckabee says if Reagan were running today, the Club for Growth would run ads against him.

Ron Paul starts out sensible, distances himself from 9-11 deniers, but can't seem for too long to keep himself from saying something Chomsky-esque.

John McCain gives incredible answer on whether Democrats can win on their Iraq position - how long can they campaign against the reality on the ground?

Rudy says Democrats idea of "change" is "change out of your pocket."

Romney references "Three Dimensional Chess," appearantly trying to steal the Trekkie vote from Ron Paul.

Immigration, amnesty, yada yada yada.
McCain ain't gonna deport a wife of an MIA soldier.
Thompson, on the other hand, ain't gonna look at folks individually.
Giuliani ain't gonna send kids out on the street, but he will end illegal immigration.

New Hampshire GOP Debate - the Principle Question

One question asked by Charles Gibson - which he freely admitted he stole from President Bush - at tonight's debate gave some insight into the core of the candidates.

What is the key principle(s) that will guide you as president?

The answer for Ron Paul and Fred Thompson: The Constitution (tradition, principles specific to Americans)

For John McCain and Mike Huckabee: The Declaration of Independence ("endowed by Creator" - principles universal to humanity)

For Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney: Here is what I plan get done . . .

Someone needs to remind Rudy and Mitt of the definition of the word "principle." It's not the same as an "agenda." If your only principle is your agenda - well that's a serious problem of having it backwards, at best.

quick thoughts on a debate with short answers

I just saw the re-airing on C-SPAN of this afternoon's Republican debate in Iowa.

Huckabee and Thompson appeared to have had the strongest performance, especially considering the absurdly short time-frames allowed for the candidates to answer questions.

Romney had that same ol' twinkle in his eye, but didn't come up with anything memorable to say. Having Alan Keyes there made for some liveliness, made Duncan Hunter seem mainstream.

Finally the candidates talk a little about education - I'll post more on that before too long. Plus more straight talk by McCain on farm subsidies vs. fiscal conservatism.

You can watch it here with real media player.