Post New Hampshire

Ok, so the comeback kids won New Hampshire, and the point is? The first primary has been known to give life to otherwise floundering campaigns, but can the Live Free or Die State really have a lasting impact on the remaining primary battles? The primary did make this race an open one, on both sides. Clearly, the Dems are down to two candidates; the GOP though still has at least four viable options.

If Clinton doesn't get the democrat nod. The potential for a Hillary-less general election fight changes the entire landscape. The main motive for my early rooting interest in Rudy was his contrast against Clinton. The comparison between Obama and Rudy isn't as appealing.

Against Obama, if Barack is indeed the new front-runner for the donkeys, Rudy looks old and frail. Against the charm and charisma of Obama you need a confident and informed candidate. And with that potential battle on the horizon, Romney is starting to look like quite an interesting alternative to the shaky Giuliani.

Romney put the issue of immigration (top conservative issue after the war) out of the park on Fox's Sunday night debate; amnesty in any form is not acceptable. Second, Mitt was on target regarding changing the culture in Washington (another conservative sticking point). At last, Romney appears to be finding his voice regarding the difference between Pennsylvania avenue and the rest of us.

McCain seemed more measured Sunday night than in recent debates. Trying to appear stoic and carefully avoiding anything which would jeopardize his recent rise in the polls. However, the fake smile always reminds me of campaign finance reform, and because of that image, he could walk on water and I'd never notice. Independents however, still like the "maverick" and clearly turned to him rather than getting sucked into the Obama wave.

I never bought into the Huckster's rise, having seen many Iowa winners fade quickly once the more-liberal New Hampshire voters had their say. Once I peeled back some layers on Huckabee, it wasn't hard to find some major flaws in his campaign. Primarily, the evangelical wing of the conservative movement that Mike represents, is too single-issue-focused for my taste.

I have to admit, I underestimated Mitt's talent and focus. His broad business knowledge, his record in turning around the Olympics, and his ability to think on his feet, maintaining big-picture thinking during the heat of a debate (something Bush never possessed), all are making me reconsider his candidacy. His reference to China as a competitor to the US, shows he's tuned into the global marketplace (whether we like globalization or not) and its changing influence in our economy.

For now I remain undecided, not impressed by McCain's New Hampshire win. Hillary seems to have new life, though the crying moment seemed pathetic and weak. Romney needs to win one of the next few primaries, before Rudy's game plan starts to take hold. Obama hasn't fully captured the moment, yet. His inability to capture the independents tonight could be a sign he doesn't have broad appeal. (note: Why didn't NH independents turn his way? I thought they were moderate libs...hmmm) Huck, Fred and Edwards are afterthoughts.

The picture is starting to take shape, yet remains amazingly vague.

Rope-a-Dope, I Hope

Rudy Giuliani is taking Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan and South Carolina off. A curious and unique strategy which hopes to show the irrelevance of the early primaries and caucus.

Thursday's results will define a winner, and it won't be Rudy. Instead, Giuliani will be hoping for a swing in momentum starting in Florida, where he still seems to have a solid grip.

Until then Huckabee will surge, but ultimately it seems only to the dismay of Romney, if at all. McCain could spoil Mitt's New Hampshire efforts, but again Rudy does as he's expected. Thompson may find a way in South Carolina, but like the other scenarios, little change needed in Rudy's plan. If all the above happens, a Rudy win in the sunshine state changes the dynamic, less than a week before Super-Duper Tuesday.

Mitt clearly is the most organized, well funded, and the apparent alternative to the not-as-conservative Rudy. Except he's not the first alternative among many in the Christian conservative base. Never mind his faith which some can't seem to get over, Mitt's issue with conservatives seems to be about trust, given his "evolving" stance on issues. This lack of consolidation of the party's base, may ultimately be his undoing.

Rudy's been quiet of late, causing some politicos to question what's wrong. I hope it's just a pause, before a major January speech Rudy seems to be waiting patiently to give. He may just be letting the other contenders punch each other's lights out. If he has such a plan, and performs the way we know he can, it should reignite Rudy's fading flame. The rope-a-dope game plan would then be well designed.

One final note. Following the assassination of former Pakistan Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, Rudy simply stated in a press release minutes after the news spread,

"Her death is a reminder that terrorism anywhere -- whether in New York, London, Tel-Aviv or Rawalpindi -- is an enemy of freedom...We must redouble our efforts to win the Terrorists' War on Us."

If anyone doubts his focus and clear-thinking in the only area that matters most this election year, they must not want to.

A Soldier's Night Before Christmas

...with Mannheim Steamroller's Silent Night as the backdrop...

Merry Christmas from page13news

Looking Forward

Rather than look back at 2007, page13news wants to look forward to what may be the most intriguing, not to mention entertaining, election year in 56 years. It was 1952 when we last had neither a sitting President or Vice President running for the Oval Office. Without an heir-apparent to the throne, the race will be unlike anything this generations has ever seen.

It wasn't that long ago, when prevailing wisdom leaned heavily toward another Clinton presidency. But ever since the Philadelphia debate (irony all over the place), Mrs. Bill Clinton has shown definitive cracks in her armor. The presumed-next-president has made a series of sophomoric mistakes which have resulted in free-falling poll numbers in each of the first 4 primary states.

Rumors of in-fighting at Big Clinton Enterprises, her inability to separate herself from her husband, planted questions, and Obama's ability to seize on Hillary's gaffs, have provided the foundation for a major turn of events in the Democrat race. It is starting to look possible that Clinton may lose all four of the early primaries. If that happens, it's all-but over for the former first lady.

So then what for the Dems and their allies? After all, since Florida and the hanging chads, the left has yearned for, and failed to taste, the sweet resounding victory they need, to get over Gore's loss. They and their buddies in the news/entertainment industry have spent over 8 years mocking, insulting, and attacking Bush in ways that have made some in their own party blush (Leiberman comes to mind). They've abandoned the concept of politics ending at the waters edge, called our troops murderers and rapists, called them losers (remember Kerry?), rooted for and insisted that we were losing in Iraq.

They cheered when Social Security reform didn't happen, they accused the administration of blatantly infringing on our civil liberties, and they pointed fingers after Katrina, when the incompetence was clearly their own. Their most compelling arguments are made by late-night comics, not leaders within the Democrat party.

The GOP isn't in any better shape. Although the top few presidential candidates haven't made any glaring, race-ending mistakes, none of them (except for maybe Rudy) inspire confidence or seem to possess the ability to capture an broad audience. Romney and Huck won't sell with moderate voters; Rudy's plan not to focus on Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, finds himself slipping in his most critical state, Florida; Thompson is no Reagan.

The GOP brand is damaged and not all because of Bush. The republican-lead congress squandered opportunities and lost credibility when they were in power. They have shown a complete inability to communicate their message effectively. They've cut deals with Democrats for re-election sake, instead of understanding the long-term effects of their actions.

So what will 2008 have to offer? Actually, there are a lot of reasons to look positively at the possibilities. Think about it. There is potential to have an actual contest leading up to the convention; both of them. Not one candidate on either side is the prohibitive favorite. The new front-loaded primary schedule has so many potential outcomes, that later contests - in Pennsylvania for example - may become the great equalizers. Hillary way ahead here, so is Rudy. If they both win the Keystone State, delegates of both parties may be divided among multiple candidates.

Suddenly, the normally boring party conventions take on a new life. Interests groups of all stripes will be force to deal with people they wouldn't normally. The winner will be the candidate who finds a way to sell the message, to cut deals, to mend fences. And both parties may emerge with completely different definitions of themselves. The Democrats could emerge as a the socialist they've become or the JFK conservative party they used to be, while the GOP could fall back to the Reagan model or appear more like Ron Paul libertarians. Hopefully they abandon the Specter/Bush/McCain/Graham model they currently seemed determined to become.

Without a clear leader emerging from the 16 contenders we have at our disposal, the potential exists for surprising results to surface. An actual debate on the direction our country wants to take, based solely on issues and common sense, may be one outcome. An outcome not rooted in polarization, but reason. One can dream can't he?

Of course, we could see the entire house of cards tumble as well. 2008 could look more like 1968. Such chaos would create the potential for disastrous outcomes. The polarization could get worse; some may see or claim a constitutional crisis exists. You think we are a divided country now, wait until the dust settles from that storm and see what we have.

The point is, no one will be able to definitively tell you how 2008 race will end. However, with all the possibilities out there, it sure will be fun to watch.

Setting Priorities

After watching GOP Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney's speech yesterday, I come away with a sense of worry. Sure, Mitt delivered a great speech. Inspiring, accurate, and filled with all the buzz words any Christian conservative would want to hear. However, that is exactly the reason why I am worried. While it was loaded with all the necessary qualifiers for a deeply religious man, conservatives need to measure this speech, with some big-picture thinking. Otherwise, we face the distinct possibility of guaranteeing another Clinton presidency. Folks, you need to get your priorities straight.

How do I get there? Out-of-the-box thinking.

Social conservatives define the GOP base and will for the foreseeable future. Their determination and persistence on a candidate with strong moral leadership is indeed a critical issue. However, political savy-ness is not their strong suit and they need to be careful about narrowly insisting on choosing the most social conservative candidate as Commander-in-Chief. There are several reasons why conservatives need to be cautious.

Let's start with the national political atmosphere. Republicans squandered the opportunity they had when they controlled both houses of Congress and the Presidency, primarily by becoming exactly what they accused Democrats of being. Now, the general public sees little difference between the two parties. No matter which is office, the perception is they are all corrupt; legislating with their next campaign in mind; spending money like drunken sailors.

Bush ran like a conservative, but governed like an Arlen Specter moderate. Both of them did. So choosing the "conservative" candidate doesn't guarantee you'll get one. W's inability to effectively sell a message, to inspire confidence in his decision-making ability, has hurt the entire GOP brand. It's not all his fault; no other "conservative" politician (currently running for President) has been able to do this either.

But wait, you may be saying, didn't Romney's speech confirm he can sell the message? No.

Mitt did deliver a great speech that even has the local news stations in Philly comparing him to Kennedy, when defending his faith from being the sole definition of his candidacy. Mitt was inspirational in declaring the intentions of the founders about the issue of religious freedom. But here's the problem; it's not all about religion, faith, or moral compass this election cycle.

IT'S ALL ABOUT SECURITY STUPID!

I am NOT saying that Romney isn't right in-line with conservative viewpoints on immigration, defense, and crime. What I AM saying is in both Romney and Huckabee's case, such fervent religious focus scares the snot out of moderate voters; the kind frequently found in places like Southeastern Pennsylvania - a place the GOP must win if it has any hope of keeping the Oval Office.

Remember Santorum?

Here, the ideal conservative candidate (a conservative Catholic), a man who put his head on the chopping block for Terry Schiavo, swayed voters to drop the gauntlet on his rising star by going too far right. He was well spoken, good looking and -unlike Romney - didn't sound like a typical 90's republican candidate.

"Typical 90's republican?", you may be asking. "What's that?" Glad you asked. There's one keyword which is an obvious hint of being such a candidate.

The word, VALUES.

Romney, as with most conservative candidates over the past decade and a half, use this word - pardon the pun - religiously. The word implies somehow that we republicans believe we are superior morally, but the public no longer believes us. Congressman Tom Foley and Utah Senator Larry Craig, among others, helped secure that concept. So continuing to drop the values phrase, usually coupled with family, falls on deaf ears. Additionally, it brings to moderate political minds, the view that abortion is the only issue which matters to the fill-in-the-blank GOP candidate.

And the Democrats know this. They use it consistently in their ads. Romney's speech, if he's nominated as the GOP candidate, gave voters who might be tuning in for the first time, the picture of a candidate that just another religious republican politician. If either he or Huck get the nod, the focus of the opposition will be on the social conservative aspect of the candidate, and not the security aspect.

In most election cycles, this conservative wouldn't have an issue with that debate. But the reality is, now is not the time for abortion or same-sex-marriage, delicate issues which come to mind when religion is the topic, to be the focus of the 2008 Presidential campaign. If it does, Hillary wins.

The focus of next year's election must be security. Immigration, Iran, and the resurgence of Marxist regime's all need to be top priorities, long before reforming the court system or a constitutional convention on securing the sanctity of marriage need to be addressed.

While I like Mitt and don't care about his religious choices, our country can't afford to have the religious distraction take our eyes off of what's really important.

Conservatives need to remember what the real issues are.

A Hero's Welcome

Sharon Hyland Keyser, a newlywed to one of our country's bravest, left a six-figure income to coordinate "personalized" homecomings for our troops returning from the Middle East. Sharon put her life savings on the line to start this venture which focuses on the unique interests of returning soldiers, and customizes their welcome-home celebrations to fit those passions. She invites local school kids to these celebrations so they can meet a real hero in person, and gets local businesses to donate products to help make the soldier's dream become reality.



Leave it up to a Suburban Philly Young Republican (Chairwoman no less) to understand what our troops really need, a Hero's Welcome. See this link to contribute to this worthwhile cause.

Taking the Next Step

Page13news is in the planning stage for a new look and format for 2008. Details will follow, but I am extrememly excited about the prospects that lie ahead.

For those of you who have been checking in regularly, I want to thank you for your support and feedback. Next year will be a BIG year for suburban Philly's alternative opinion. Stay tuned for continued updates and additional posts exposing the left's lunacy.

Fight Like a Man Hillary

The foundation for electing a woman president, according to the left, is based on the assumption that women are capable of doing and handling anything men can. So why is Hillary (Mrs. Bill Clinton) playing the sex card when it comes to the debates?

Clinton Inc. leveled "mudslinging" charges against Tim Russert and the other wanna-be presidential candidates. What caused the boys to be targeted for such slander? It seems that the girl didn't like the fact that Russert dared to challenge Hillary on the flip-flop she uttered in last week's debate in Philadelphia. The issue revolves around Hillary's answer to a seemingly simple question.

New York's (democrat) governor, Elliot Spitzer, was pushing for ILLEGAL ALIENS to be granted driver's licenses. The question was simple, "do you support the plan?" A simple yes or no answer was called for. But somehow, America's "smartest woman" found herself saying two different things in a span of 2 minutes.

John pretty-boy Edwards at least had the jewels to point it out and Russert followed-up by pressing Clinton on her answers. The result; the girl whined about the vicious slinging of mud and compared the boys pointing out her inconsistent remarks to attacks "right out of the Republican playbook".

Mrs. Bill Clinton, if you can't be held accountable for things you say, without whining like a little girl, what makes you think the American voters should trust you are tough enough (a.k.a. the intestinal fortitude) to be President??