Road to Victory

This is my view and perspective on the road to the White House and what Republicans need to do to win.
We need to galvanize and stand united as the left side seems to be unified in many areas and have their chosen candidate. The Republicans as of now are divided on many issues and none of the candidates seems ready to pull away or energize the party. I've said this many times "The road to victory for the Republican Party is through the Conservative Right", the true base of the party. If we alienate them it will be a slim chance for victory and if we do then we need to look at an alternative plan to keep the White House. We should also ask ourselves, do we stand for true Republican values and possibly lose the '08 election but win on principle by supporting a lesser known candidate and in the next election regain our base and direction or do we back more of a moderate to liberal candidate, try to sway democrats, win the White House and hope that our fellow Republicans in the House and Senate can keep him somewhat in line. That is what we need to answer.
As it stands now is there any candidate running that can excite the Conservative Right? We can quickly rule out the "Big Four", Romney, McCain and Giuliani and also to a lesser degree Thompson. They all have their weaknesses. What Christian or moral conscience American would want their leader supporting pro choice, homosexual rights and appearing in drag? And will Conservative Christians come out to vote for a Mormon that has flip flopped on abortion and homosexual rights and who has written letters to the Log Cabin Republicans supporting their cause?
Furthermore the main Democrat candidates have kept their liberal base in tact by attending a debate hosted by Gays - Lesbians - Bi and Trans gender but "The Big Four" arrogantly snubbed their core by not accepting an invitation to a Values Voters Debate in Florida which will further distance the Conservative Right and make it an even a tougher sell to invigorate this much needed base.
So then what are some of the variables and possibilities of the Republicans keeping the White House?
Will start with Rudy Giuliani. As mentioned above he won't woo the Conservative Right but what he does have going for him is electability with Democrats. He was elected Mayor in a very democratic city. His pro choice and acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle will sit well with the liberal left. He can also play on 911 and his presence during it and garner support from veterans because of his stance concerning the Iraq war. Fiscally he has lowered taxes, that sits well with everyone.
McCain is also someone that can grab votes from Democrats who feel alienated with their party which has drifted way to far to the left. Next to Hillary, Kucinich and the rest of the liberals, his very stable, calm demeanor will do well. And compared to some in the Republican party he is middle of the road. McCain comes across as Presidential and very much a moderate. What he loses with Vietnam Vets and Conservative votes he can make up else where.
People know little of Fred Thompson other than he was on Law and Order. Most didn't even know he was a senator from Tennessee. He resonates well with his Pro American talk, supporting the effort of the troops and war in Iraq. His electability hinges on swaying the Conservative Right as I feel few Democrats will jump ship to vote for him.
As for Mitt Romney though he may be leading in some polls I truly don't know where his votes will come from. The Left will feel slighted that he back tracked on his support of liberal causes and on the Right they will be questioning which Mitt should they believe? Is he right or left? I believe he is the least electable of all candidates.
Concerning the lesser known candidates running on the Republican side, few have any chance of winning. Its unfortunate that the GOP has abandoned them. This is where the true Republican Party lies. By far the best candidate of everyone is Allen Keyes. America is searching for that no nonsense, bulldog patriot who won't compromise his beliefs, well they have that type of person in Allen Keyes and yet the Party won't back him. He stands in the way of the party elite and goes against the status quo. The line I will always remember, I believe it was in the '96 Republican debate, was when the candidates were trying to make the arguments they were outsiders. Allen Keyes spoke up and said "I am a black Conservative Catholic, how much more of an outsider can you get"? Its true and yet people won't support him.
About the only other two that can possibly achieve a stunning upset would be Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul. Huckabee would have ALL the Conservative Right votes hands down. He would do very well debating any of the democrats, he would make them look even more left of center if that is at all possible.
That leaves us with Ron Paul. He would pick up both Conservative, Liberal and Libertarian votes. Liberal votes? YES! His antiwar stance would take away for Hillary's flip flopping on the war and his very pro life and pro family beliefs would definitely get the Conservative votes. He would also get the Libertarian vote as he wants out of the UN, limited government and very pro Constitution. Again why isn't the party supporting someone like him?
The other variable is the disdain for anything Clinton. If she gets the nomination it may be enough to get out everyone on the Right side to vote for whom ever gets the Republican nomination just to defeat her. This is the worse case scenario for the Republican Party hoping the base will come out just to defeat someone and disregarding an electable choice.
In my opinion the road to victory for the Republican Party and returning America to greatness is with either Mike Huckabee or Ron Paul but I believe the Republican party is to globalist and entrenched with the status quo to allow change and a new direction for America.

Carey K. Masci

President Bush Speeks in Cleveland

What an exciting day it was on Tuesday July 10Th, 2007! This was the fourth time I had the opportunity to see President Bush speak and by far the most intimate setting with about 400 in attendance. It was held at the Intercontinental Hotel adjacent to the Cleveland Clinic. For all the problems Cleveland faces and being labeled the poorest large city in America its good to see the attention the city garnered during the Presidents visit. Cleveland is very important politically.
The hotel and surrounding area was buzzing with activity, from the secret service, FBI, police, the media and all the volunteers who help organize the event. It is amazing the amount of work that goes into preparation for a presidential visit. The media rooms were a spectacle to see. All the monitors, the maze of wires, computers, lights, cameras, its very impressive and hard to adequately describe, its really something that needs to be seen in person.
As for the Presidents speech he was warmly received and the tone was of a preelection rally. He was touting his objectives and goals on a wide array of topics, ranging from health care, immigration, oil and alternative fuels, faith based programs, space exploration, Iraq and a few other topics that he jumped around on from one to another.
There was three areas he spent some time on. Concerning Iraq President Bush reiterated his stance on why we should be there and that reason is establishing democracy is the key to peace in the middle east. He talked on reducing our dependence on oil, alternative fuels, our immediate goals and future solutions. He mentioned how ethanol production has increased and the benefits and problems associated with it. In the not to distant future hydrogen fuel cells, coal and finally wind technology could play a big role in reducing our dependence on oil. His immigration plan was explained. In short summary he is not for amensty, illegals should be sent back and made to go through the proper chanels to apply for citizenship.
Someone had mentioned that President Bush is not the best speaker and stuttered quite a bit. I differ completely on that opinion. There is more than eloquence in delivering a speech.
President Bush comes across as a very likable person, down to earth, someone you could go have coffee with. He admits his shortcomings like when he was talking about the importance of faith based programs which helped him, in reference to his past. Though he may stumble and ponder for the word he is looking for, the facts and answers come easy. He is very believable in his deliverance. He also makes you feel at ease with his sense of humor which is important in this hectic world we live.
As I mentioned this is the fourth opportunity I have had to see President Bush speak and each time I walked away uplifted. This time was no different as I left feeling that there is a future for America and not a bleak one. That's what a good speaker should do, uplift and motivate a person. And that's what a good leader should do, instill confidence and hope in tomorrow.

Carey K. Masci

Is Our Religious Freedoms at Stake?

The first part of Amendment 1 in the Bill of Rights states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise there of;

Its ludicrous how Judges and other law makers have found a way to pervert the meaning of those words and fooled the people into thinking it means separation of church and state, no where does it even hint at that. And though those words couldn't possibly be any easier to understand I will simplify it even further to remove any remaining doubt what so ever of the intent of what was written.

Congress shall make no law, zero, none, NO LAW means NO LAW.

Respecting, bias, giving favor over another.

An establishment of religion, that means Catholic, Protestant, Baptist, and so on, NOT God or Jesus Christ. God and Jesus are not a religion. A religion is a set of beliefs. This country was founded on Judeo Christian principles so I did not include Muslim, Buddhism, or other anti Christian religions.

(or) Prohibiting the free exercise there of. To stop, hinder, interfere with religious practices, whether to pray, read the Bible, display religious signs or any other means of religious expression.

Now lets take it as a whole one more time:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise there of;
It states Congress (government) can not favor any particular religion or interfere with religion BUT it does not mention in the least bit that religion can't get involved in government.

Two things led me to write this, a recent incident in the Ohio House and the Hate Crimes Bill.

On May 8Th in the Ohio House ministers were asked to tone down their prayers and remarks concerning political matters. What law did they violate? Amendment 1 states nothing against this but state guidelines insist on ministers submitting their speech at least three days prior so it could be reviewed.
My questions are many. How was such a rule passed, who passed it, why would you enforce such a rule that breaches freedom of speech and interferes with religion?
Two Democrat State Reps, Robert Hagan of Youngstown and Chris Redfern of Catawba Island walked out in protest of the prayer led by the minister. Equally as alarming is Republican Representative Matt Huffman of Lima who didn't have enough spine to defend the right of prayer and freedom of speech and cowarded as the prayer was given.
House Clerk Laura Clemens warned the practice of minister led prayer could be eliminated.

As for the Hate Crimes Bill I am concerned for many reasons. There are laws already against discrimination based on race, color, national origin, age, and sex. It was expanded to include people with disabilities and sexual orientation. But now they want to expand it even further beyond federally protected activities. How far will they go? How will this new addition to the Hate Crimes Bill be misinterpreted? Are we close to not being able to preach that homosexuality is wrong?
Its really redundant to have any kind of Hate Crimes Law. There is already laws against murder, assault etc..., are we suppose to punish the lawbreaker twice and are we now elevating a group of people over another?
Furthermore if this law is passed it could infringe on our religious beliefs and have the government policing our pulpits. No where does it say in the Bible you should not allow a person the right to live and live freely but it does say homosexuality is wrong and as believers we should warn and tell others about how this lifestyle is immoral. Could that last statement be construed as a Hate Crime because I said homosexuality is wrong?
This bill if passed goes directly against the First Amendment and will erode our religious freedoms even further.
Carey Masci