Here is an argument to consider: our federal government is so poorly run, so inept and incompetent that the American voter in 2008 may opt for a tough, ruthless, red-tape-cutting ‘quasi-dictator’ to get things done.

After Iraq, Katrina and Walter Reed, some frustrated voters may have lost patience with trying to do things the ‘right way’ and vote for someone who brags about his successes - no matter how they are achieved.

And that ‘dictator’ would be the man who openly boasts about turning around New York City: cleaning it up, cutting the crime rate, cutting taxes and restoring the best city to its rightful place: Rudy Giuliani.

Indeed, Rudy made the “trains run on time.” But at what cost?

Giuliani is a ruthless, mean, manipulative political animal who will trample on anyone to get what he wants. Anyone who shuns his only son and won’t even attend his high school graduation last year and opts instead to side with his wife against his own flesh and blood is not someone who we should want running our country.

Nor should we want someone who -after 9/11 - actively tried to delay the November elections for six months so he could remain in office longer than his elected term.

American tradition is clear: through every type of difficulty - world wars, depressions and our own Civil War - we have always held our regularly scheduled elections. Period. But Rudy - the egomaniac - craved the post-9/11 national notoriety and didn’t want to give it up - so he tried to change the length of his term by six months - an unprecedented power grab.

Media and political critics are obsessed with Rudy’s social liberalism and believe his pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-gay rights stances should doom him in GOP circles; so far that hasn’t been the case. What no one is yet focusing on is the man’s total lack of character; he is a power-mad machine who will do and say anything to get what he wants. Thus he will blow off wives for new girlfriends, he will - as US Attorney - indict people for grabby headlines and then never prosecute them, he will woo cops and firefighters in an election and then totally betray them afterwards. Plus, he surrounds himself with sleazy people: Bernard Kerik who was philandering with women in an apartment donated to the city for 9/11 workers to rest in near Ground Zero, was attached to Rudy for years. And now we discover - and maybe Rudy, too, just discovered that his present wife actually had two previous marriages.

How is it possible that we have all just now been told this?

Answer: the Giuliani campaign did not know it until the New York Daily News dug up the records and confronted the campaign last week. Then all of a sudden they trot out a ‘prepped’ Judy to fess up.

The fear inside the GOP should be: what else do we not know about these dysfunctional people? And will it come out after it is too late to stop him from being the GOP nominee? Rumors in New York political circles abound of many other women during his married years as mayor. Will that come out?

And don’t you just know the Democrats will have a virtual army of private eyes out digging up stuff on Giuliani and then hold it until he is the GOP nominee - and then unleash it before November 2008.

Conclusion: the Republican Party is crazy if they nominate Giuliani. Just crazy. Sure, he made the trains run on time in New York. But that has nada to do with being President of the United States.

There is ‘getting things done.’ And then there is ‘getting things done’ the correct way.

Let us hope that in our national frustration over the incompetence of the Bush Presidency we don’t carom over into the thinking that we need even more arrogance, hubris, corner-cutting, Constitution-abrogating and tradition-shunning.

Instead, what we need is honesty, openness and straight-talking about the many serious problems besetting our nation.

All of which are lacking in the present field of candidates in both parties.


Four years. Longer than World War II - a war in which the US and her allies defeated powerful Germany and powerful Japan - two industrial and military giants at that time.

We have been fighting - against someone - for four years in Iraq - and we still cannot make the airport road into Baghdad safe.

What has happened - and why?

And what does the future portend?

1) The fundamental mis-conception has always ben that non-Muslims could occupy an Arab Muslim country and remain there for more than a few months.

Such an occupation cannot work. Period. The built-in nature of Arab Muslims is filled with hatred, resentment, in-breeding, tribal conflict, widespread opiate use, Jihad against ‘non-believers,’ and a view of the after-life that encourages some to martyr themselves - and take as many Christians and Jews with them as possible.

2) Iraq - as a nation thrown together 90 years ago by outsiders - has no ‘national tradition’ other than fear of the central government. In fact, all Arab Muslim nations are the same: they are run by the jack-boot of fear and order from a central government. They simply cannot handle the freedoms we so cherish here in the West. And they don’t really want them either. Thus they all have virtual dictatorships - even when, like Egypt, they ‘appear’ to be democratically elected.

We deluded ourselves with a terminal case of ethnocentrism - where we figured the Iraqis were just like us and wanted what we want. So we then ‘gave’ it to them - democratic elections, freedom the of the press etc.. and it isn’t working.

They do not want what we want. They don’t want it - and they won’t - and didn’t - fight for it.

3) In fact, they revel in fighting against us. And because we’ve been running the country for four years, we are now blamed for every problem - no electricity, no security, ethnic pay backs - that occur on our watch.

4) Saddam and his Sunni-dominated Ba’ath Party ruled Iraq for decades - all through fear and violence. Why? Because it was the only way to keep order.

5) Prediction: Iraq will only ‘settle down’ when another strong-man takes over. Yes, another tyrant; another dictator who does awful things to his people. This is the lesson naive Americans - including a clueless-about- foreign policy GW Bush and his inept advisers - will have to learn all over again:

America can not and should not be the World’s Policeman!

A dictator - undoubtedly of the Shi’a branch of Islam - will wreak horrible revenge on Sunnis, who will try to flee to Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia; they already are flooding those countries, which have closed their borders.

We can’t rebuild New Orleans; we can’t stop illegals from crossing our own borders; we can’t balance our own budget. How in the world could we even think we could rebuild and then run Iraq?

No, we did not create this civil war in Iraq; but we did - through our lack of forethought - unleash it.

6) American conservatism need to take a long, hard look in the mirror. How could a philosophy be so bastardized by the Bushies? How could conservatism be morphed into massive new federal programs, new irreversible entitlements, new far-reaching anti-privacy powers, new federal departments, a new role in education - and a foreign policy built on pre-emptive intervention?

Conservatism has been built on the role of government: we conservatives are supposed to believe - as Lincoln said - “government should only do what people cannot do for themselves.”

7) The Republican Party has been torn asunder by the Bush policies - especially on illegal immigration and Iraq. Bush may have made it impossible for the Republicans to keep the White House next year.

The Congress will almost certainly stay in Democratic hands. Can you imagine if a Hillary or an Obama or an Edwards or Richardson occupies the Oval Office with un-checked power on a Democrat-controlled Capitol Hill?

It will be a total disaster.

Massive new federal programs will certainly ensue. More debt - even more than under Republicans - and more taxes, too.

The economy will suffer - and so will everyone except the rich (they never suffer as they knows ways to make money even in bad times; that’s why they’re rich).

This is the legacy of GW Bush.


Unless the GOP can find a new candidate who can re-connect a fractured and dispirited GOP - and take it to the Democrats by showing how totally out-of-touch and naive they are about the world. As of now, there is no such candidate in the race, but there is still time for one to emerge.

Absent that new candidate, the Republican Party - and conservatism itself - are in desperate shape.


Looking at all the present GOP presidential candidates, there are several common threads:

1) They all invoke Ronald Reagan as their ‘model.’

2) None of them ‘get’ Reagan - or have anything in common with the qualities that made him unique and a great president.

3) The mere fact that they all imitate and try to copy Reagan exemplifies just how un-Reagan- like they are.

Let us explain:

What made Reagan so successful?

It is - and - was quite simple: he was already a ‘made’ man before he entered politics. Yes, he was a radio, TV and movie star; but, more importantly, he had matured, suffered many ups and downs and, most of all, he knew who he was and what he believed. His political philosophy was his - not the product of focus-groups and adjustments.

His first wife, Jane Wyman, left him ostensibly because all he talked about was policy and politics. But he loved it!

He developed his (conservative) philosophy when it was not popular. But he was so sure of himself - and happy and secure in his own skin - that opposition to him and his views never phased him. Ever.

Did you ever see an angry or a flustered Reagan?

Did you ever see Reagan changing his hair style...his clothes...his entire persona?

Did you ever see Reagan lash out at people?

Did you ever see Reagan brag about his ongoing conversations with God? Did he ever wear his religion on his sleeve, as is so popular these days?

Now, let’s take a look at today’s politicians and candidates - as they all invoke Reagan as their ‘model’ and ‘mentor’ - but, in fact, none of them even grasp what Reagan was all about:

John McCain: a wicked temper, an internal ‘unhappiness’ reflected in his disparaging of underlings and staff; an inveterate - and admitted - womanizer (a sure sign of something lacking) - and an in-bred sense of superiority coming from a privileged upbringing by his father, Admiral McCain, which allowed John to overcome and escape the consequences of his repeated bad behavior.

Rudy Giuliani: a mess of an individual. Yes, tough and rough and goes all out to get what he wants. But at what cost to others? He will stomp on anyone who gets in his way; just look at the numerous criminal indictments he brought as US Attorney in the late 1980's - for headline purposes to further his career - but never prosecuted.

Look at how he treated Wife # 2: humiliating her by bringing girlfriends right into Gracie Mansion during their marriage.

Look at how he didn’t attend his son’s high school graduation. (And he wants to be the nominee of the GOP - a party that says it respects ‘family values’?)

Rudy is smart as can be - but he, too, is a mess of a human being - with this over-riding drive to be a somebody - whereas Reagan’s drive was to do something - in his case implement strong defense and try to reduce the scope and power of the federal government.

Plus, Rudy surrounds himself with sleazy people and friends. Bernard Kerik is now well-known. But there others. Like attracts like.

Mitt Romney: nick-named Flipper at the recent CPAC meeting in DC, this son of a former Michigan governor has also struggled with finding himself. In the 1990's he wasn’t a Republican. He was an independent and voted for (liberal) Paul Tsongas for President in the 1992 Democratic primary. Then, in 1996 when he ran against Teddy Kennedy, he bragged about being “to the left” of Kennedy on gay rights and abortion rights.

Now, as he runs to be Mr. Conservative, he suddenly flips all his positions to be a true-blue conservative. And he trots out one tortured explanation after another for his sudden changes.

Newt: smart, calculating, undisciplined - and totally incapable of containing his out-of-control ego. He is indeed the sharpest and most intriguing of all the GOP candidates. But in his time as Speaker, we saw his weaknesses: the GOP Revolution quickly morphed into the Gingrich Revolution; he began comparing himself to historical giants like Churchill and FDR; and he started talking in the third person, “Gingrich will go down in history as...”

An addition - on the Democrat side:

Hillary: a total disaster of a human being. A foul-mouthed, cold, angry woman who has spent all her adult life trying to hide her liberalism and radical feminism. She hooked onto Bill Clinton and rode him to the White House. But it was his tremendous political skills that got him there - not hers.

Now that she is on her own, you get glimpses into her emptiness. Yes, she works hard and has self-discipline. But her ever-changing hair-styles and repeated re-launches of her ‘personality’ (“I am the best known person no one know”) are a brief window into a person who is never happy with herself.

Conclusion: so far, as we gear up for the 2008 campaign, none of the candidates has demonstrated that ‘internal confidence’ that is then manifested publicly. They are all indeed driven - but just to get power; not to use that power for any specific purpose.

What we need in this country is simple: a leader who wants to do something - not someone obsessed with becoming a somebody.


OK. Let us try a new way to analyze the 2008 presidential campaign: through a Moral Meter.

First, let’s look at the country. How would you rate the United states on a Moral Meter? Low, high or in the middle?

Personally, I’d rate it this way: a majority of people are upset over some aspect of the declining moral atmosphere in our country. But, when it comes to politics, the overwhelming majority of people believe - correctly - that our elected and appointed officials are so ‘low’ that it is hopeless to try to make it better. In other words, the people no longer even expect anything better than the absolute lowest standards. Thus lying about oral sex or non-existent WMDs or the true cost of the prescription drug program no longer hurts that candidate’s credibility; people seem to discount lying - figuring "they all do it" - and they accept it.They may not like it, but they accept it.

How sad.

Knowing this, voters don’t care when Hillary lies about her "cattle futures" $100,000 windfall or her scores of other lies. Nor do they care about Romney’s lies about his positions 10 years ago or his lie about his residency when he took over the salt Lake City Olympics. And they don’t care about Giuliani’s constant womanizing and philandering.

Conclusion: in American election politics, there is little expectation of any morality in any candidates. Or, in another way to look at it, a lack of morality will not hurt a candidate.

OK. That means the least moral candidate may very well win. In the GOP, that is Rudy Giuliani. Thrice married, an inveterate womanizer, surrounded by sleazy people, a fraud when he tries to glom onto the Reagan tradition (he was a McGovernite anti-war protestor in the 1970's and a registered Democrat when Reagan was elected and only switched in order to get a job in the Reagan Justice Department), it is highly possible this most amoral man will become the nominee of a political party that claims to be moral.

And it is also possible that he will be elected President in a country which has lost its moral compass.

Many view Rudy as "tough" (he is) and "determined" (he is) and will "stand up for us" (he might).

But those qualities are useless without a moral basis from which to operate. Toughness without good judgement is a prescription for trouble; determination without a sense of history and balance is a road-map for bad decisions.

Rudy Giuliani is - without a doubt - the most amoral candidate running for president in the GOP in 2008.

His entire life - from his Mafia father - through his private and public life show a pattern of ‘do anything to get what you want - no matter how you do it or who you hurt.’

No need to go over his past marriages, his social positions so at odds with the GOP he now courts or his meanness and arrogance; that will all be played out over the next few months. And McCain - another totally amoral liar (funny how these two lead in the polls, isn’t it? Doesn’t that prove this point?) - will now, in his desperation, take off his gloves and try to savage Rudy to knock him down in the polls.

But the GOP has proven itself now to also be a Moral Wasteland - no longer aware of its purpose. They tolerate Bush’s lies and condemn the Democrats’ lies. How does that figure?

How about some outrage over our own failures instead of a knee-jerk defense of every lie and misleading statement?

Evangelical ‘leaders’ are cropping up all over the nation supporting Giuliani - and saying things like, "Well, I am supporting him because he can win."
So that is the standard: winning - not principle - is now the gold standard even of the self-proclaimed moral leaders!

On the Democratic side, Bill and Hillary Clinton are by far the most amoral politicians we have ever seen. And the mainstream - i.e. also amoral - media has allowed them to get away with it for two decades.

So, using this Moral Meter, it isn’t too hard to believe that the 2008 race might be between Giuliani and Hillary - both from New York (probably viewed by most American as the most amoral (blue) state).

What a wonderful choice, eh?

No wonder so many people are so depressed over the present course of our once-great country.

And oh how we need a new candidate to enter this race - and change the whole dialogue.