![](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_x97oorE2c9c/S6ahTZCOu6I/AAAAAAAAA6Q/WhO_nWZHN4k/S220/ArizonaMiracle.jpg")
Four more years of Washington corruption may be all that the nation needs before it will awaken to the need for another Barry Goldwater or Ronald Reagan.
In 1976, Ronald Reagan waged a historic battle against the Washington establishment, and against a creeping strain of totalitarianism that had been re-emerging in the Republican Party since Barry Goldwater defeated it in 1964. With 1,130 delegates needed to win the nomination, incumbent President Gerald Ford won 1,187 against Ronald Reagan’s 1,070.
In the same year, then-Governor Kit Bond lost his re-election campaign. He was dragged down by the electorate’s weariness with the party of corruption — the party of Gerald Ford, who Bond had endorsed over Ronald Reagan.
Apparently refusing to learn from history, now-Senator Kit Bond has picked a similar set of historical circumstances to endorse another losing candidate: Rudy Giuliani. Pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, anti-Second Amendment and former Democrat, the best one-liner Giuliani will be able to muster at next year’s endorsing convention in St. Paul will probably be to the effect of, “Are those elephant pictures on the wall? I thought this was the Democratic convention.”
He could even enhance his machismo if he got divorced for a third time, and, instead of having his wife call him in the middle of his acceptance address (as has happened to a half-dozen of his speeches so far), he could have a new girlfriend call him.
Not to be outdone, my own Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman endorsed Giuliani as well. "We have similar records — making cities safer, creating jobs, lowering taxes," Coleman said. They’ve undergone similar political transformations as well – Coleman chaired Bill Clinton and Al Gore’s Minnesota campaign in 1996.
That was before he ran as a Republican gubernatorial candidate against Jesse “The Body” Ventura in 1998. He proceeded to lose against the only candidate in the nation who showed up to debates in camouflage and hiking boots, and we’re still wondering how that happened.
Conveniently, I live in the same Congressional District as Coleman’s campaign manager, so I see him at a fair number of party functions. He’s a congenial person, and he makes you want to support the Senator. Unfortunately, his justifications come across as though he doesn’t understand the Senator himself. His response to an e-mail I sent regarding the endorsement: “We need everyone's support if we're going to win. Regardless of who our nominee is.”
That goes without saying. What I was really asking is why the Senator belongs to this party when he has more in common with Al Gore than with our platform, and why he doesn’t seem to want anyone’s support. (Not only is his political behavior capricious, he’s become significantly less personable since he went to Washington. People who get the chance to talk to him in small group settings have taken to calling him “Senator Shh,” because he’ll wave his hands around, bow his head, and start “shhing” people when he wants them to stop talking.)
Regardless, Bond and Coleman’s endorsements may not matter much as Giuliani’s campaign chairs seem to have a low shelf life. After Sen. David Vitter signed on to be his southern regional chair, he was found on the calling lists of the DC Madam. Thomas Ravenel, the chair in South Carolina, was just indicted on federal cocaine charges this past summer.
At the same time, the media consistently give Giuliani good numbers in polls that I won’t bother referencing. It would seem to suggest that a majority of party members share his morals.
Yet I have a hard time finding Republicans who actually support him. I would attribute this phenomenon to the “Valentine’s Day” wing of the party. Church-goers often talk about Easter and Christmas Christians, who only make it to church on those holidays. Similarly, the caucus system sees quite a few people who show up in February to vote, never to be seen or heard from again.
And that’s why they’re irrelevant. They can select the candidates, but very few of them will volunteer or contribute money. That’s why Giuliani has raised $47 million thus far to Obama’s $80 million and Hillary’s $90 million.
Giuliani might win the nomination by appealing to the Valentine’s Day voters, but he and his chairmen will need to get through the general election without anyone going out of their way to support them. That’s going to be difficult.
We shouldn’t be too worried, though. Dawn can only follow the night; we may not have much to hope for in the next election, but four more years of Washington corruption may be all that the nation needs before it will awaken to the need for another Barry Goldwater or Ronald Reagan. And that’s why my mantra through next November is going to be, “Four more years!”
Sources
1. Bond Endorses Giuliani: http://www.columbiatribune.com/2007/Nov/20071102News005.asp
2. Coleman Endorses Giuliani: http://www.twincities.com/allheadlines/ci_7342792
3. Giuliani Wife Calls: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/2007/09/29/2007-09-29_giuliani_explains_why_he_took_wifes_call-2.html
4. Cocaine Chairman: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,284637,00.html
5. Fundraising Receipts: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp
You ARE joking, aren't you, when you suggest that Ronald Reagan was a representative of integrity and that Republicans are the solution rather than the PROBLEM when it comes to the government corruption !
If you Google "Republican corruption" the very first or second hit will bemy own http://LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/aboup/gopcorruption.html as I am one of the www's authorities on this question. And when it comes to corrupt administrations, despite the efforts of the so-called "Liberal media" to close its eyes, ears, mouth and memory to the truth, the fact remains that the have been few administrations with more crooks and conivers, as I document at http://JesusNoRepublican.Org/about/Reagan.html
The ranking of Google search results and self-appointed "expert" titles are always a terrific indicator of what is true and factual…
Remind me again, which verse in the Bible is it where Jesus advocates adultery and perjury? Or crooked real estate dealings? Or stealing national documents? Or institutional racism? Or illegal campaign fundraising? You're right, those virtuous Democrats are a virtual mirror of Christ.
Patrick, I'd be delighted to compare Democratic vs. Republican office holders on moral grounds.
First with regards to "which verse in the Bible is it where Jesus advocates adultery and perjury?", it's been immensely entertaining to watch how "appalled" Republican hypocrites are with the relatively innocuous behavior of a Democrat while they tolerate infinitely worse behavior in their Republican friends.
As for the bible, I trust that you know that Jesus was proud of being "the son of David", reflecting to high regard the bible had for that illustrious king. I couldn't help but wonder how Christians who should be familiar with the story of King David and Bathsheba, the mother of King Solomon, (II Samuel, Ch. 11) could possibly be so upset with Bill Clinton. Looking back at the original story, I was struck by how much worse David's behavior was, and ended up with some very disturbing questions, not just about him, but about the other actors in this story, i.e.:
How could the scriptures give such honor and deference to such a despicable adulterer and murderer?
If Bathsheba resisted, then wasn't David a rapist as well as an adulterer?
If she cooperated, then wasn't she an accomplice to the murder of her husband as well as adulteress ?
When his defenders say that God made him (and Bathsheba) pay for his (their) sin, by taking the life of the child, what kind of justice is that? What kind of God takes the life of a totally innocent child as payment for the horrendous sins of the child's parents?
If David was truly repentant, why wasn't he required to stop taking his stollen woman into his bed and making babies with her?
Now if Republicans REALLY despise immoral behavior, then why don't they have any problems with George Herbert Walker Bush' Franklin Coverup Scandal
The Child sex ring that reached Reagan / Bush Whitehouse :
See the shocking stories in the Washington TIMES (not the Post) http://www.thelawparty.org/FranklinCoverup/franklin.htm about what should have been the biggest scandal in the history of the U.S.A. history. The story received some newspaper coverage, but there was a TV News Media blackout on the subject. For this reason, most Americans have never heard of it.
Former Republican state senator John Decamp was involved in the production a documentary called "Conspiracy of Silence" which was scheduled to air May 3, 1994 on the Discovery Channel. This documentary exposed a network of religious leaders and Washington politicians who flew children to Washington D.C. for sex orgies. At the last minute some unknown congressmen caused the program to be yanked by threatening the TV Cable industry with restrictive legislation.
Almost immediately, the rights to the documentary were purchased by unknown persons who had ordered all copies destroyed. A copy of this videotape was furnished anonymously to former Nebraska state senator and attorney John De Camp who made it available to retired F.B.I. chief, Ted L. Gunderson. While this video quality is not top grade, it is a blockbuster documentary in what is revealed by the participants involved. You can view an online copy and / or purchase a VHS copy at these links :
http://educate-yourself.org/tg/tgvideosandbooks1sep02.shtml.
Boy prostitutes 15 years old (and younger) were taking midnight tours of the Whitehouse. Here are 19 more Washington Times articles in full text about this case.
Good job addressing one issue I brought up and ignoring the rest, going off on a lunatic diatribe about hypocrisy.
As to your King David example: if you take the Bible literally, he was the king of a theocracy, chosen directly by God, and who was responsible directly to God. He apologized for his sin (something Bill Clinton never did), confessed it, and was punished for it. If you're looking for perfect characters in the Bible you won't find any because they were all human. Humans are born with a sinful nature. David was held responsible for his actions though. He didn't equivocate, cry hypocrisy, blame the Republicans and dodge the issue.
As long as we're narrowing the topic of discussion down solely to sex scandals though, was the alarming expose you pointed me to (provided courtesy of a natural, non-pharmaceutical alternative medicine website) any worse than Barney Frank and his boyfriend running a gay brothel out of his D.C. townhouse? Or Gerry Studds having gay sex with an underage male congressional page? As long as we're talking about hypocrisy, how come both of them were held up as civil rights heroes by their party, never condemned by their party for their actions, and continued to serve out-and-proud in congress? As I recall, Larry Craig was condemned by the Republican party and asked to resign when it became public knowledge that he had been caught red-handed tapping his foot in a men's room stall with no proof of any sexual act having taken place!
I think maybe you ought to lay off of the herbal remedies for a little while. Oh, and check out my website to learn the REAL truth about the Democrats, freemasonry, 9/11, and the hosiery-industrial complex at http://www.fringelunaticconspiracytheoristsrus.org
Rayosun, "the son of David" was more about lineage than it was about David, himself. Yet, David is called a "man after God's own heart." But, this wasn't because of adultery, rather his repentance of it and his desire to be godly.
Your lack of biblical understanding is apparent. Jesus was apolitical about this world. His message was heavenly, not earthly.