SCHotline

by Alex Saitta of www.pickenspolitics.com 

August 4, 2007 

I lived in New York City when Rudy Giuliani was the mayor from 1993 to 2001. Rudy is an extremely capable leader. When he puts his mind to something, it gets accomplished.  

He is fiscally conservative. He was successful in cutting business and personal income tax rates in New York City and reducing welfare significantly. He also is very law and order. He took the mob out of the Fulton Street fish market and the garbage hauling industry, and reduced crime by more than half in the worst areas of the city and cleaned up Time Square, which was polluted with sex shops, and drug users. His social views are liberal. He took actions to protect illegal immigrants from the INS, he supports gay-rights, is pro-abortion and sued gun manufacturers. 

My fear is, Giuliani gets elected President, and we have a Democrat Congress. I think Rudy will see the path of least resistance as pushing through the Democrat Congress his socially liberal ideas.  

If the Republicans take back the Congress, I think Rudy will push his fiscally conservative ideas, knowing he’ll have the votes in Congress to rein in spending and reform government. For conservatives, Rudy would be a good President, if we had the 1994 Republican Congress. 

Having said all that, the Democrats are afraid of Rudy, because they know he is the one candidate Republican candidate who will get votes all along the political spectrum. In NYC, which is 4 to 1 Democrats, Rudy won two elections as a Republican. 

Both parties know if you win 3 of the following 4 states, you win the Presidency: Those states are California, Texas, New York and Florida. A southerner teamed up with Rudy, takes Texas, New York, and Florida and the Republicans win the White House. 

Dems know that, and that is why they don’t want Rudy as a nominee for President or even as the Vice President. They will be gunning to destroy him over the next year. You’ll see liberals pounding on Giuliani for his socially liberal ideas, just trying to discredit him with the Republican voters. It will be a fight that could destroy Rudy as a nominee and VP material.  

If I was the Republican national chairman, I would have advised Giuliani to stay out of the primary and avoided this upcoming fight and the exposure of all his negatives on social issues and in his marriages. Once the Presidential nominee was picked, I would have pushed to make Rudy the Vice President, and then had him work the northeastern states and Florida. Guiliani will deliver New York, the rest of the northeast and Florida, which are rich in electoral votes. If the Presidential nominee can deliver Texas and the south. The Republicans win going away.  

Republicans have the best strategy to win, and I think that is it, but Giuliani is so strong headed, he wants to be at the top of the ticket, so he wasn’t going to go along with that. 

###

Dissident U.S. intelligence officers angry at former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld helped a European probe uncover details of secret CIA prisons in Europe, the top investigator said on Tuesday.

Swiss Senator Dick Marty, author of a Council of Europe report on the jails, said senior CIA officials disapproved of Rumsfeld’s methods in hunting down terrorist suspects, and had agreed to talk to him on condition of anonymity.

“There were huge conflicts between the CIA and Rumsfeld. Many leading figures in the CIA did not accept these methods at all,” Marty told European Parliament committees, defending his work against complaints it was based on unnamed sources.

The report issued last month said the Central Intelligence Agency ran secret jails in Poland and Romania, with the complicity of those governments, and transported terrorist suspects across Europe in secret flights.

Poland and Romania have repeatedly denied hosting CIA prisons on their soil.

“People in the CIA felt these things were not consonant with the sort of intelligence work they normally do,” Marty said.

He said he had based his findings largely on conversations with “high officials of the CIA (and) highly placed European office-holders, who for different reasons, often honorable reasons, were ready to explain what had happened”.

Since he had no power to summon witnesses, subpoena documents or search buildings, he was forced to rely on such evidence, Marty said.

“The Americans themselves admitted there were secret prisons, that they abducted people from the streets, that people were handed over to countries like Syria, Yemen, Egypt where they were tortured,” he said.

U.S. President George W. Bush acknowledged last year that the CIA had held top al Qaeda suspects in secret overseas detention centers but did not say in which countries.

“The president of United States made a very important statement…, I think we can all expect … in the near future further admissions,” said Marty.

He also said he would not remove name of former Polish and Romanian government officials from the report, although they threatened on Tuesday to take legal action against the senator.

The report said former Polish national security adviser Marek Siwiec and former Romanian Defense Minister Ioan Pascu knew their countries had hosted secret CIA detention centers.

“I have no reason to withdraw his name. I would certainly not be prepared to apologies. He knew exactly what was happening as did his president,” Marty told a news conference, referring to Siwiec and former Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski.

“I am not shaking in my shoes,” he said of the libel suit that Siwiec vowed to launch in a Polish court unless Marty removed his name from the report within seven days.

Pascu challenged Marty in the hearing to substantiate his allegations or withdraw them, but the Swiss legislator did not respond directly.

© Reuters 2007.

Editor’s note:
Get Dick Morris` New Book Autographed - Free Offer!
You Can Profit from Globalism and Technology Advances - click here now!
The 3 Best Income Stocks in the World
Bacteria and Viruses Are Very Dangerous – Defend Yourself

From DumpLindseyGraham.blogspot.com The 2008 Republican Primary is half a year away. South Carolina, you have a very simple question to answer. Are you going to allow a man with the record below, Lindsey Graham, to continue to represent you in the United States Senate?

Linsdey Graham’s Record As Our Republican US Senator

1) Co-wrote the failed Amnesty Bill of 2007 in a secret, back-room deal with Ted Kennedy, Harry Reed and his personal puppeteer, John McCain.

2) After numerous polls, tens of thousands of phone calls and emails, and hundreds of talk show callers TOLD HIM that THE VAST MAJORITY of South Carolinians wanted him to stop supporting the ill-conceived Amnesty Bill, he turned a deaf ear. Instead, he called you, the citizens of South Carolina, “a few loud people”, and then he absolutely ignored you. On the day the bill died, on the floor of the Senate, Jim DeMint asked Lindsey Graham, “What part of NO don’t you understand?”. Thankfully, 53 Senators finally decided to listen to us, the citizens, and killed the tragically flawed Amnesty bill.

3) As the bill was spiraling to its death, he stood on the Senate floor and cried for the criminal aliens. He lambasted those who disagreed with his position. He DID NOT CRY for the millions of US citizens who can’t earn a decent wage because of the millions of criminals who snuck into our country. In fact, he never mentioned them.

4) Called Teddy “Splash” Kennedy “One of the most principled men I’ve ever met.” It is the overwhelming view among South Carolinians that “Splash” Kennedy is one of the most despicable, liberal men to ever walk the earth, a man personally responsible for a large portion of America’s current Welfare State, and a man who walked away from a car accident and left his passenger, a young college student, to drown to death. To Lindsey Graham, he is a hero. And this man, South Carolina, is your Senior United States Senator.

5) Called you, the citizens of South Carolina, “bigots” because you disagreed with him on his, Ted Kennedy’s, and John McCain’s Amnesty Bill. You believed we should enforce the law. He believed we should grant amnesty to 12 Million criminal trespassers in our country. He stood in front of LaRaza, one of the most racist organizations in the world, praised them lavishly, pandered to them, cried huge tears of despair for these poor immigrants (who BROKE THE LAW and CONTINUE TO BREAK THE LAW) and then told them, a room full of racist liberals, that you, South Carolinians, were the bigots!

6) In the wake of 9/11, DID NOT FOCUS ON MAKING SOUTH CAROLINIANS MORE SECURE. Instead, Lindsey Graham focused on protecting the rights of the terrorists. He wrote the bill that extended rights to terrorists equal to those of United States citizens! He stood on the floor of the Senate and cried for the terrorists who were being aggressively interrogated. He called the US Military barbarians. And, unbelievably, he went all the way to the US Supreme Court to defend known terrorist Salim Ahmed Hamdan. Folks, this is YOUR UNITED STATES SENATOR!

7) In answer to the point blank question, “What is your job as a US Senator,” Lindsey Graham answered, “My job as a US Senator is to work with the Democrats.” That’s a direct quote folks. Your Senior Senator believes that you elected him and sent him to Washington to work with the Democrats!

In fact, Mr. Graham has repeatedly said that he doesn’t worry about what his constituents have to say, and that he is not worried about getting re-elected. He has often said that by and large, the folks in South Carolina aren’t smart enough to understand what’s going on in Washington, and that he must protect us from our own ignorance.

9) Participated vigorously as a member of the infamous Gang of 14, who used archaic Senate procedures to strip conservative Republican’s rights. South Carolinians overwhelmingly disagreed with Graham, and inundated him with calls, letters, emails and faxes. As expected, Mr. Graham ignored his constituents and fell in line with John McCain and the Democrats.

10) Wrote a glowing article about Hillary Clinton for Time Magazine in April 2006, and partnered with Ms. Clinton on numerous bills that were vehemently opposed by the majority of South Carolinians. “She has been great to work with,” Mr. Graham told FoxNews‘ Cal Thomas.

South Carolina, is this the man we want as our Senior United

Click here for the audio interview held on 07/25/2007

In 2004, Newt Gingrich And Other Conservative Leaders Wrote Wall Street Journal Op-Ed Calling For Comprehensive Immigration Reform, Stating, “The Status Quo Is Unacceptable And Clinging To The Status Quo – Or Tougher Versions Of It – Is Neither Conservative Nor Principled.” (Newt Gingrich et al, Op-Ed, “Welcome To America,” The Wall Street Journal, 2/6/04)

· Other Conservative Leaders Signing Op-Ed With Gingrich Included Stuart Anderson, Jeff Bell, Linda Chavez, Larry Cirignano, Cesar V. Conda, Francis Fukuyama, Richard Gilder, Ed Goeas, Tamar Jacoby, Jack Kemp, Steve Moore, Grover Norquist, Richard W. Rahn and Malcolm Wallop. (Newt Gingrich et al, Op-Ed, “Welcome To America,” The Wall Street Journal, 2/6/04)

Op-Ed: “[A]s Conservatives We Believe That Our Laws Must Reflect Reality And Common Sense, Be Fiscally Responsible, And Avoid The Loss Of Innocent Life. Our Current Immigration Laws Do Not Pass This Test.” “[A]s conservatives we believe that our laws must reflect reality and common sense, be fiscally responsible, and avoid the loss of innocent life. Our current immigration laws do not pass this test. Between 1990 and 2000, the U.S. increased the number of Border Patrol Agents from 3,600 to 10,000. During that same period illegal immigration rose by 5.5. million. Moreover, over the past eight years, more than 2,000 men, women, and children have died attempting to cross into America and seek the opportunity to work and achieve a better life.” (Newt Gingrich et al, Op-Ed, “Welcome To America,” The Wall Street Journal, 2/6/04)

Op-Ed: “Clinging To The Status Quo .. Is Neither Conservative Nor Principled,” And “It Has Become Clear That The Only Viable Approach To Reform” Combines Enforcement With Increased Legal Immigration While Addressing “Those Already Here In The U.S.” “The status quo is unacceptable and clinging to the status quo – or tougher versions of it – is neither conservative nor principled. It has become clear that the only viable approach to reform is combining enforcement with additional legal avenues for those who wish to work in our economy, while also addressing the situation of those already here in the U.S.” (Newt Gingrich et al, Op-Ed, “Welcome To America,” The Wall Street Journal, 2/6/04)

Op-Ed: “We Applaud The President And Believe His Approach Holds Great Promise To Reduce Illegal Immigration And … Aid Homeland Security And Free Up Border-Security Assets To Focus On Genuine Threats.” “President Bush has proposed a new legal path to work in the U.S. through a temporary worker program that will match willing workers with willing employers. We applaud the president and believe his approach holds great promise to reduce illegal immigration and establish a humane, orderly, and economically sensible approach to migration that will aid homeland security and free up border-security assets to focus on genuine threats.” (Newt Gingrich et al, Op-Ed, “Welcome To America,” The Wall Street Journal, 2/6/04)

Op-Ed: “The President Has Shown Courage By Calling On Congress To Place Reality Over Rhetoric And Recognize That Those Already Working Here Outside The Law Are Unlikely To Leave” And Congress Should Establish “Paths To Permanent Residence To Enable More Workers To Stay, Assimilate, And Become Part Of America.” “The president has shown courage by calling on Congress to place reality over rhetoric and recognize that those already working here outside the law are unlikely to leave. Congress can fulfill its role by establishing sufficient increases in legal immigration and paths to permanent residence to enable more workers to stay, assimilate, and become part of America.” (Newt Gingrich et al, Op-Ed, “Welcome To America,” The Wall Street Journal, 2/6/04)

Op-Ed: “Each Generation Of Americans Must Connect Our Nation’s Past To Its Future And In So Doing Keep President Reagan’s Vision Of The ‘Shining City’ Alive.” “Immigrants are crucial to our competitiveness and future labor and economic growth, as well as our military strength. Our country’s welcoming attitude to immigrants will permit the U.S. to grow and prosper, as the populations of many other nations stagnate and decline. Each generation of Americans must connect our nation’s past to its future and in so doing keep President Reagan’s vision of the ‘Shining City’ alive.” (Newt Gingrich et al, Op-Ed, “Welcome To America,” The Wall Street Journal, 2/6/04)

###

Welcome to America

The Wall Street Journal

February 6, 2004

Fifteen authors offer this “Conservative Statement of Principles on Immigration”:

In his farewell address to the nation, President Reagan said: “I’ve spoken of the Shining City all my political life . . . [I]n my mind it was . . . teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace, a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and heart to get here.”

America is a nation of immigrants. Except for Native American Indians, everyone in this country came to America or is here due to the good fortune that a parent, grandparent, or other relation came before them. Keeping a door open to those with the “will and heart to get here” is vital to our economy, our culture, our role in the world, and our historic tradition as a land of freedom and opportunity.

Conservatives believe in legal immigration. We believe that America grows stronger by welcoming those who seek to better their families, work in our industries, and find liberty and refuge from oppression.

Conservatives oppose illegal immigration. We believe there is a right way and a wrong way to immigrate to the U.S. However, as conservatives we believe that our laws must reflect reality and common sense, be fiscally responsible, and avoid the loss of innocent life. Our current immigration laws do not pass this test.

Between 1990 and 2000, the U.S. increased the number of Border Patrol Agents from 3,600 to 10,000. During that same period illegal immigration rose by 5.5. million. Moreover, over the past eight years, more than 2,000 men, women, and children have died attempting to cross into America and seek the opportunity to work and achieve a better life. The status quo is unacceptable and clinging to the status quo — or tougher versions of it — is neither conservative nor principled. It has become clear that the only viable approach to reform is combining enforcement with additional legal avenues for those who wish to work in our economy, while also addressing the situation of those already here in the U.S.

President Bush has proposed a new legal path to work in the U.S. through a temporary worker program that will match willing workers with willing employers. We applaud the president and believe his approach holds great promise to reduce illegal immigration and establish a humane, orderly, and economically sensible approach to migration that will aid homeland security and free up border-security assets to focus on genuine threats. The president has shown courage by calling on Congress to place reality over rhetoric and recognize that those already working here outside the law are unlikely to leave. Congress can fulfill its role by establishing sufficient increases in legal immigration and paths to permanent residence to enable more workers to stay, assimilate, and become part of America.

We believe strongly in assimilation and oppose efforts to weaken the historical process that has led to e pluribus unum. While immigrants by and large reject entreaties by those who favor multiculturalism, the best defense is a good offense: making the teaching of English and civics a priority in our schools, community colleges, and adult education programs.

Immigrants are crucial to our competitiveness and future labor and economic growth, as well as our military strength. Our country’s welcoming attitude to immigrants will permit the U.S. to grow and prosper, as the populations of many other nations stagnate and decline. Each generation of Americans must connect our nation’s past to its future and in so doing keep President Reagan’s vision of the “Shining City” alive.

Co-authored by Stuart Anderson, Jeff Bell, Linda Chavez, Larry Cirignano, Cesar V. Conda, Francis Fukuyama, Richard Gilder, Newt Gingrich, Ed Goeas, Tamar Jacoby, Jack Kemp, Steve Moore, Grover Norquist, Richard W. Rahn and Malcolm Wallop.

###

by CHARLES BIERBAUER

Somewhere between the Ides of March (always a downer) and the first day of spring (hope eternal), the calendar shrank dramatically. Then just as we passed the equinox, the equilibrium was further upset. All this will be far more evident by this time next year when, for all practical purposes, the 2008 presidential nominees may be settled.

Any hopes of a gradual crescendo allowing presidential candidates time to build on early successes were wiped out during the past week when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger scratched California’s primary off the June calendar and wrote it on February’s page instead. The change, Governor Schwarzenegger said, would give California “the influence it deserves” in the selection process.

California’s eagerness to get in the game has tectonic implications, but then California famously sits on fault lines that produce major earthquakes. Florida delivered the aftershock when its state legislature took steps to move the Florida primary to January 29.

South Carolina, sitting on both seismic and political fault lines of its own, had figured to be the state to shake up early candidate rankings in both parties. Our primaries, expected January 29 and February 2 (don’t make me explain that partisan quirk here), would have been the first after traditional kickoffs in Iowa and New Hampshire (also too idiosyncratic to get into now). The notion, not a bad one, was that South Carolina would cast the first fairly representative vote that would start to winnow the anticipated large field of Republicans and Democrats in the 2008 race.

Should we worry? Should we be angry with Arnold? The Floridians? Have we been dissed?

South Carolina now may have to share the first good shakeup of the candidate fields. But California’s action, especially, has turned what might have been a string of aftershocks into a mammoth tsunami on February 5th with 20 or more states joining that day’s super-sized primary.

The frontloaded calendar could make South Carolina’s role all the more important and its glow all the briefer. Even as candidates traverse the Palmetto State looking for support, they will be looking beyond us to the massive number of voters—more importantly, convention delegates—at stake a week later. Don’t expect any to linger here.

What does it mean to us?

• South Carolina’s candidate debates will take on greater significance. Three are already scheduled:
*Democratic candidates will be at South Carolina State University in Orangeburg on April 26th.
Yes, that’s this year. MSNBC will broadcast that debate.
*Republican candidates will be at the University of South Carolina on May 15th with Fox News broadcasting.
*CNN (anxious not to be left out) and the Congressional Black Caucus will sponsor a Democratic candidates’ debate in January, 2008, time and place still to be announced.

There will be other debates in other states. There just won’t be time between Iowa/New Hampshire and Super Tuesday for all to share the limelight.

• The media will be more important to the candidates than meeting voters face to face. The grumbles are already heard from New Hampshire voters that the candidates are not showing up in their kitchens and cafes this season.

Media attention comes in different forms:
*There’s free media. A candidate merely comes to town and the local print and broadcast press report on the event—usually favorably.
*There’s earned media—you actually make news.
*There’s my own media—a candidate’s web site.
*There’s paid media—currently only Republican Mitt Romney is paying for ads. Substantial paid media will come in a blitz close to the South Carolina primaries.

Campaign funds, though seemingly vast, are allocated strategically. Some candidates may spend more ad money here, desperate to make an impact and because South Carolina television markets are a lot cheaper than southern California’s or Florida’s. Some candidates surely will divert ad funds away from South Carolina to more favorable Super Tuesday states. No one, not even Hillary Clinton, is likely to have enough money to play in every state. The shortened calendar means early winners will have just a few days to spark their fund-raising. The rest will need all the free media they can get, though waning stars do not attract media attention.

There may be fewer stars in the southern constellation because of the calendar compression. The winnowing is under way. Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack has already left the field. Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel vacillated last week, much like New York Governor Mario Cuomo’s “to be or not to be” hesitation in 1992. Hagel suggested he could make a decision later this year. Maybe not. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich seems poised to jump in if all other Republican candidates falter. Democrats seem to be sifting their way to Hillary, Barack Obama and “somebody else.”

South Carolina will certainly get its fill of presidential candidates for the next ten months. That has not changed. The suspense just may not last as long. We can, I suppose, thank Governor Schwarzenegger for that.

###

Charles Bierbauer covered presidential campaigns for CNN from 1984 through 2000. He is now dean of the College of Mass Communications and Information Studies at the University of South Carolina. His views and analysis are his own, and not those of the university. Dean Bierbauer is also the senior contributing editor and consultant to www.schotline.com.

Romney In SC Today: “I was always for life.” (Jim Davenport, “Romney Affirms Abortion Opposition During Stop In SC,” The Associated Press, 2/8/07)

Romney In SC Last Week: “Over the last multiple years, as you know, I have been effectively pro-choice … I never called myself that as a label but I was effectively pro-choice and that followed a personal experience in my extended family that led to that conclusion.” (Bruce Smith, “Romney Campaigns In SC With Sen. DeMint,” The Associated Press, 1/30/07)

I’ve already done one year in Iraq and will be going back for another soon.  A lot of people “thank me for my service to the Country” and I suppose most of them genuinely mean it.  Some people even go so far as to thank me for “fighting for their freedom,” but the cynic in me is starting to question how much Americans truly want to be free.

Smoking bans are of course the latest example.  It’s not enough that restaurant owners can choose to make their establishment smoke-free or patrons and employees can choose which type of environment they prefer.  Most people now expect the government to limit freedom for the sake of protecting us from ourselves or their not happy with the choices others make.

Part of freedom is being free to make the wrong decision, freedom to fail and freedom to be stupid.  Part of freedom is engaging in self-destructive behavior that others may find objectionable as long as you accept the consequences of your own behavior.   If you choose to enter a smoke-filled restaurant, for example, you have to accept the consequence of second-hand smoke.

Of course government meddling in restaurants and bars is nothing new – just look at all the drama that played out over mini-bottles or video poker - not to mention the ban on trans-fats currently playing out in other states but will soon make its way here.

We’ve lost the freedom not to wear a seat belt anymore.  We’ve never even had the freedom to play a friendly game poker with the neighbors.  Mention school choice and most people shudder at the idea of having to make decisions in the education of their children.  The same goes for private retirement accounts in lieu of our faltering social security system.  Socialized health care is just around the corner.  The government routinely dictates minimum wage to private companies.  The list goes on and on.

So, please, I know I don’t speak for all veterans, but as long as you choose not to be free, don’t thank me for “fighting for your freedom.”

Captain Shawn Keller
US Army Reserves
1443 Cecilia Drive
Charleston, SC 29407