This post was an email I received as part of an offline conversation with my blog-bro, Jon of We Swear (whose blog is currently down due to technical difficulties). In our discussion, I stated my reasons why Rudy Giuliuni's chances for becoming president are non-existent. In my opinion, the 6 marriages alone, between him and his current wife Judith, are enough to kill his chances. Since I was pressed for blog-fodder and found some of his arguments compelling, I've posted it here in its entirety with his permission.

Voting Trends and Rudy's Chances

First, there are several groups of Presidential voters in this country;
- The Non-Voters (who will never vote)
- The May-Voters (who vote if theyÂ’re really motivated - note that Republicans, Democrats, & Centrists/Libertarians/Independents may be in this group)
- The Centrist / Libertarian / Independent (CLI) Voters (are swing voters, who vote for either Republicans or Democrats depending on the issues of the day)
- The Democrat Voters (always vote their party line, and usually vote)
- The Republican Voters (always vote their party line, and usually vote)
(There may be others... [but I agree w/Jon are few in numbers and therefore inconsequential to his point])

Who will vote for Rudy vs other candidates and why?
The Republicans and CILÂ’s voters will put National Security *way* (^10) above other issues.
The Democrat voters will only look at who is supporting their personal (pet) issues.

The "swing" - if you will - are the Republicans & CLIÂ’s. They will support a Democrat if: a) The Republicans are really weak, b) The Democrats are really good, or c) National Security is not an issue. Most people don't want to have the FedGov actively involved in their life. Democrats do a pretty good job of that. Even the moderate Right Wing (which is different than Repub's) have a "leave everyone alone to live their lives as they see fit, God will decide their fate" attitude.

History has shown that a president who is active overseas will be active domestically. He will interfere with people's day-to-day lives and Republicans generally do that. So in order for a Republican to be elected, (against a strong Democrat) he has to be the type that people (Republicans & CLIÂ’s) believe will not interfere with their way of life while supporting National Security.

Republicans are a very forgiving bunch. I'd bet that nearly every R has a friend who has been re-married. And they are still friends. It isn't an "exclusionary" issue. Neither is adultery. While it is still bad, it isn't something that causes a person to exclude them from their life - like lying or stealing. Those things get you kicked out of a friendship. Relationships? Na. That's private stuff and Republicans & CLIÂ’s don't judge like that.

I predict Rudy will succeed because he crosses the bridge that Republicans, CLIÂ’s and some Democrats see as allowing him to be "acceptable". Remember, in a two-party system, the one who wins is the "lesser of two evils". He will be that.

A very important chunk of voting comes from the second group above, the "May-Voters". Within that are all three of the Democrats, Republicans, and CLIÂ’s. They follow politics but need a "motivation" to vote. They skew polls because they claim to be "likely to vote", but the usually don't. In this election, their motivation to vote will come from the two candidates - some a pull towards, some a push away. The pull towards is the Republicans who love Rudy and the Democrats who love Hillary (yes, she will come out of the DNC as the candidate). The push, however, is going to be a huge motivator. And it will be against Hillary. I've seen polls (yes, the polls I just said were skewed) where 45% of the likely voters would vote just to *oppose* Hillary. That's a _huge_ number. Even if it is skewed by a factor of 10, it is still 5% of the voters who will vote for whoever is running against Hillary. And 5% would have been decisive in the last two elections.

As always, the primary determinant between the R and the D will be which party gets their "base" out to vote. With the Electoral College the way it is (and that's a good thing), the Republicans will have more areas voting on the basis of National Defense than the Democrats will on their disparate issues. And with Rudy being the strongest imaginable on National Defense, he's got a huge chunk right there. If you throw in that he supports many things that CLIÂ’s and "may-vote" Democrats have (abortion, gay marriage) - heck and even the personal issues of many Democrats - he's going to win.

The issues you bring up may be a problem for him with the far-Right. But they are *huge* pulls for people from the center, center-left, and even into the middle-left. And those three groups are much bigger than the far-right.

I'm not saying he will be a _great_ president, I'm just predicting he will be our _next_ president.

Posted by: Michele at 08:06 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 849 words, total size 5 kb.

House Judiciary Votes to Subpoena White House Staff

In the ongoing saga of "As the House Turns", a Judiciary subcommittee voted unanimously today to subpoena several senior current and former White House officials. They are seeking testimony regarding the firing of eight federal prosecutors which you have undoubtedly heard about. Some of those who will be served subpoena's are: Karl Rove, former White House Counsel Hariet Miers, their deputies, and Kyle Sampson, former chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

In taking the vote, the committee rejected yesterday’s offer by President Bush to make his aides available to talk privately with the House and Senate Judiciary committees, but not under oath or on the record. Shortly before the vote, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said of the committee, “The question they’ve got to ask themselves is, are you more interested in a political spectacle than getting the truth?” Subcommittee Chair Linda Sanchez responded, “There must be accountability.” Tune in for tomorrow's episode of this intriguings saga which I will dubb: "Will they or won't they [testify]?"

Posted by: Michele at 12:41 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 186 words, total size 1 kb.

I've been so busy lately with federal legislative issues that I've not been able to deal with things closer to home. And believe me, there's a lot that has been going on right here.

It seems that the NYC Council, which governs over the 5 boroughs and close to 8 million people, have taken more actions towards getting more press for themselves. And I see that in the process, they've caught the attention of some who are quite pissed. I'd really like to know how the NY City Council intends to enforce this law against people using the "N" word.

I'd like to remind readers & bloggers, that these are the same people that have chosen to become the food / fat police, and the cigarette vigilantes. Now you see why I'm looking for greener pastures to graze on. I just told someone yesterday, that my dreams/goals are not coming true fast enough for me. After this morning (see post below), I feel like I needed to leave this city yesterday and move to Montana where I'll have to deal more with cows than with people!

But a thought just occurred to me... when I leave, what will my new blog be called?

Posted by: Michele at 02:10 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 209 words, total size 1 kb.

1 You could always move here to PA. The pastures are greener, we've many cows and you could vote for me *wink, wink*

Posted by: oddybobo at March 09, 2007 02:34 PM (mZfwW)

2 "Letters From Here" ... or in this case of cows..."And the Cow Goes Moo" "Cow Tipping Chronicles" ? Oh I could go on for hours, except I leave work in 5 minutes. heh

Posted by: Dazd at March 09, 2007 04:27 PM (7Ts4D)

3 Little House in Montana? Memoirs in Montana? Narrative of North Dakota?

Posted by: vw bug at March 09, 2007 04:55 PM (yA7GO)

4 Montanta Moooooooosings? Letters from Cow Country?

Posted by: sticks at March 09, 2007 06:46 PM (bo3Ur)

5 LOL Montana Moooooosings Nice...very nice!

Posted by: Dazd at March 09, 2007 08:10 PM (xjwRl)

6 You guys are just too funny!

Posted by: michele at March 09, 2007 09:11 PM (UgY20)

7 "Letters From NYC... Relocated"

Posted by: Jean at March 10, 2007 07:31 AM (YadGF)

8 Wait a sec, you can't be leaving. That's insane! Where's your loyalty? What about "Only the Strong Survive?" If I find a "Letters from Helena" pop up on TTLB, I won't be very happy. *sigh* Screw the City Council...we could take anything they dish at us, can't we? Cummon, please, say it ain't so.

Posted by: Erica at March 10, 2007 03:40 PM (n1ABe)

9 Michele - I can't believe you would leave NYC! And Montana? Now THAT will be an adjustment! Just make sure it's not eastern Montana. The Rockies are much prettier than the plains. I've lived in both, and Billings was flat. Boring. And cooooold! You ARE joking, right?

Posted by: Bitterroot at March 10, 2007 11:23 PM (9FXen)

10 Hey - I have lived in several parts of Montana (and have contacts there if you need 'em). How about Letters from the Big Sky?

Posted by: Richmond at March 12, 2007 05:31 PM (e8QFP)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

So I was right in the groove of a really funny political post which has been brewing since I returned from DC. And I was trying to finish in time to listen to Ellison on the radio when I got a call from my son's school.

It was my son's teacher calling because of a little incident she had with my son in her history class. For Woman's History Month they are studying woman leaders, among them Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton. Well, began to tell me that the class was asked how Americans feel about Pelosi being Speaker of the House, and my son raised his hand and said "Ashamed" without hesitation.

I said nothing waiting for her to finish telling me what my son had done wrong. After a long pause she asks: "Are you there, are you listening?"

Me: Yes, I'm here, I was just waiting for you to finish your account so I could respond appropriately.

Teacher: Well, I just want you to know that he was quite insistent and wouldn't change his mind and went as far as calling her inconsiderate. When I asked him why he said to me, "because of what she did to my mommy and to others." I understand that your politics may be different, but we need to teach our children, especially boys, that we need to be proud of all women, especially our women leaders.

Me: [As I exhale slowly gathering patience for this interuption at work] My son has a personal issue with and strong feelings for Ms. Pelosi and her staff. I suspect that it will be a long while before he's able to let them go.

Teacher: What possible personal issues could a 7 yr old child have with the Speaker of the House?

Me: Her staff kept pushing back our meeting into the late afternoon after which they cancelled our meeting, which made me miss my flight home, along with dinner and my bedtime routine with him. We both have a lot of reasons to be angry with her, so I'm not going to convince him to feel otherwise.

Teacher: Uhm, but that's different she's the Speaker of the House, she's dealing with important matters. [Blah, blah, blah...]

Me: And I'm a mother of a 7 year old that doesn't understand what was happening in DC this week that required my presence there. I've taught my son that lateness and rudeness is inexcusable and to tell him their behavior was ok because of their position would negate what we believe in and would create a false standard. All he knows is that his mom didn't come home for dinner, didn't read him a bed time story, and wasn't able to pray with him or hug or kiss him goodnight as she does every night. That, in his world, carries more weight than any of the Speaker's issues.

Teacher: Blah, blah, blah, ..... [as far as I was concerned our conversation was over, but I had to let her finish. Unfortunately it continued beyond what it had to, but since he's going there on a scholarship I have to walk a think line and be on my best behavior. But yes, we all have a lot of reasons to be angry with Pelosi. except my issues go back... way back!]

Posted by: Michele at 12:40 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 485 words, total size 3 kb.

1 " I understand that your politics may be different, but we need to teach our children, especially boys, that we need to be proud of all women, especially our women leaders." This sounds to me as if we're supposed to "admire" a woman just because she's a woman. How stupid is that. We don't admire men for being men... There is so much wrong on so many levels with this conversation. (just the fact that she called you!) But the biggie here is that she is saying your son's opinion is invalid because it doesn't conform with hers. He has his reasons, but those reasons aren't good as far as she is concerned. In other words, because he is a boy, he is supposed to parrot the mantra that "all women are wonderful". Thus making him a good person... hogwash! Makes me wonder if she thinks "all men are scum". I wouldn't be surprised. Although it would be instructive to ask her if she's proud of all the men in this country who are in power... if not why not? If we're proud of all the women in power, shouldn't we be proud of all the men too? As for me... I'm proud of your son for standing his ground.

Posted by: Teresa at March 09, 2007 02:28 PM (gsbs5)

2 I'm proud of him too. Doesn't he count as an American? Doesn't his opinion of her count? I agree with Teresa. Since when do we need to be proud of or admire someone because of their sex? What if Pelosi had used s-e-x and not her gender to get where she is? Should we be proud of her then? Or what if she got there lying, cheating, murdering, etc . . . akin to a third world leader - should we be in her thrall then? All this teaches young men is that it is not ok to be a man, but regardless of historical fact if you succeed in your tasks we should be proud of you because you are a woman. As if it is some major accomplishment to get out of the kitchen or bedroom.

Posted by: oddybobo at March 09, 2007 02:43 PM (mZfwW)

3 I applaud your sense of restraint. I am not sure the conversation would have gone as smoothly had I been one of the participants. Respect and honor are things that are earned, not accidenta of birth. I would not have hesitated to inform the teacher that this standard applies to her as well. Your son has certainly earned a measure of respect, as has his mother for raising him right.

Posted by: Stephen Macklin at March 09, 2007 06:57 PM (Z3kjO)

4 Pat yourself on the back for raising a child who can reason on his own. Then hug him and let him know that there are people out here that think he's pretty special. BTW, all I can say about Teresa's comment is BRAVO *standing ovation*!!! That pretty much nails my opinion of this event. Hope you have a great weekend...

Posted by: Lemon Stand at March 09, 2007 08:04 PM (9i141)

5 Y'all need to come south where the teachers won't be quite so liberal. If your son had said that in my class, I would have been high-fiving him. And my phone call to you would be, "Do you know what your adorable son said today???"

Posted by: Mrs. Who at March 09, 2007 11:41 PM (9FXen)

6 Kudos to your son... and you!

Posted by: Jean at March 10, 2007 07:36 AM (YadGF)

7 Teresa - DITTO! Stephen - Ditto again, and a manly chest-bump! (Okay, maybe that's over the top. Nevermind.) And Michele - as for Mrs. Who's comment... Believe her. I've seen/heard her give just such kudos to parents for real! You're doing a fine job. High-five the young'un for me! This reminds me of an 'episode' I had when I happened to notice a new GameBoy game that my stepdaughter was playing. It was "Power Puff Girls: Battle H.I.M." The villain was - of course - male. I asked Mrs. Who - "You don't have a problem with the media teaching misandry to your seven year old daughter?" At the time, she just laughed it off. I continued fitfully ranting, but Mrs. Who just rolled her eyes, "It's just a game." I asked, "Do you really want your sweet daughter following in the footsteps of Gloria Steinem and her ilk? There's a chasm of difference between being 'feminine' and being a man-hating feminist." Mrs. Who still just laughed, telling me I was over-reacting and being silly. Then we noticed (or I pointed out) how frequently PrincessNO took a negative view of male figures in different circumstances. It was more often than not. (I've since attributed Mrs. Who's then P.O.V. to residual effects of her idiot ex and subsequent post-divorce "men-are-scum" phenomena. She eventually came 'round!) That's when we started watching the cartoons that our kids were watching. They're CHOCK-FULL of misandry - not to mention the incredible amount of sexual innuendo. Apparently having cartoon characters deliver humor aimed 'over the heads' of children is designed to make them "more enjoyable for the whole family." All the "violent" Loony Tunes cartoons are gone, and they've remade them into soft-porn, liberal-spewing CRAP. (Think about it: When was the last time you saw Elmer Fudd toting his shotgun?) /tangent - sorry. It happens. A LOT, I'm afraid. One cartoon in particular had 'Taz' in competition with a female character. In the end, Taz lost the bet and was forced into the "realization" and woefully, downtroddenly professed that "girls were BETTER." Not EQUAL... BETTER. That's when we decided it wasn't worth $40 a month to pay for that sewage to be pumped into our house daily, especially with little sponge-brain kids being the inevitable primary consumers. (TV Executives know this too - look at the amount of advertising aimed at the teen, 'tween' and younger crowd.) And do you know what? We haven't missed paid TV programming at all. Well, okay, there is some discomfort over the loss of SciFi channel and Fox News. If I could get just those two without all the rest, I'd be a happy camper. Interesting side-note, misandry is not even in the Firefox default spell-check dictionary... But misogyny *is*. Oh, and if Teacher ever calls again... Give her my number, please. ;->

Posted by: Bitterroot at March 11, 2007 12:29 AM (9FXen)

8 Wowee! You sure hit the jackpot (or jackboot) with that school! I'm still recovering from court-mandated tuition to a liberal private school and that was a waste of 10 years of my life putting on a smiley face when I wanted to heave my Cheerios. Lemme tell ya - Fortunately, through superb parenting and the cluebat of reality my daughter is carrying a 4.5 in High School and has a much more healthy normal life. And she's checking out ROTC for college. Take that, hippies!

Posted by: Cappy at March 13, 2007 07:00 AM (6gy9P)

9 kudos to your son. and also to you.

Posted by: wRitErsbLock at March 13, 2007 12:22 PM (+MvHD)

10 I wonder why she choose those two women leaders for the question. Why no mention of Condi. How about she mention the female troops fighting in Iraq, they are doing more important work then Nancy or Hillary. Good for your son for having his own opinion and not following the sheep.

Posted by: sherlock at March 13, 2007 01:17 PM (THj5I)

11 I love that she AUTOMATICALLY assumed it was about politics and never asked him why. A seven year old!

Posted by: caltechgirl at March 13, 2007 03:52 PM (/vgMZ)

12 Personally I think we need to get rid of Women in History Month, Black History Month and any other month in which a particular ethnic, religious or sexual orientation group is held in greater esteem because of their race, religion or gender. Instead of focusing on what is truly important.. Great People of America... we are adding fuel to the flames of prejudice. If everyone is equal and they are, then no one group should have a "month" or all should. I am proud of the stand that your son took with his class. It shows that he has thought out his opinion instead of parroting what his teacher has told him. And you are absolutely correct in that his opinion has value since his life was turned upside down by the inconsiderate rude act of a "woman" in power.

Posted by: Tink at March 13, 2007 05:13 PM (vfIfd)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

A big number of conservative bloggers, some who attended the recent Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) think so. In fact, they are so outraged by Coulter's use of vitriolic and divisive rhetoric during CPAC, they have called for her exclusion and a tougher stance against such tactics, as they believe its a threat to their political movement. What say you? Where do you stand on the use of name calling and bias language to make a political point and foster further debate? Is it really a victory when you get more media coverage for the reprehensible remarks made by one attendee, than for your entire conference or your political agenda?

Posted by: Michele at 01:48 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 118 words, total size 1 kb.