There's something about a guy who marries a woman 25 years his younger that's creepy and disturbing.  Especially if that guy is a Republican who wants the nomination for President.

Add to that the fact that this guy chose to have kids in his sixties, which is creepy and selfish, and then turned right around and decided to run for President while they're 1 and 4.  That sounds like a guy whose "all about Fred," and doesn't have a lot of solid judgement or common sense.

I see a man of very questionalble morals and judgement, a selfish streak, and kind of on the weirdo side.  The more I see of this guy, the less I like.

And why are conservatives getting all excited over this guy whose pro-choice??

For those who are interested in a good analysis of Fred Thompson's positions on the issues, go here.  On the list of "things that bother me about Fred Thompson," I'd add a couple.  First, as it stands now, he'd get creamed by any of the Democrats.  That's a big one. 

Second would be his wife, whose almost thirty years younger than him and fathering a child at such an old age.  There's something really creepy about a guy who marries someone so much younger than himself, and something really creepy about a guy in his sixties fathering a child.  Creepy and selfish, since that kid will end up going most of their life without a father.

Yes, it's Zogby, but it's still important.  One of the big arguments for Fred Thompson was that he was more "electable" than Romney.  This is the first national poll I've seen that put Fred! in head-to-head matchups with the Democrats, and the results aren't pretty:

General Election match-ups:

McCain 47%, Clinton 43%	Giuliani 48%, Clinton 43%
McCain 43%, Obama 46%	Giuliani 42%, Obama 48%
McCain 46%, Edwards 41%	Giuliani 47%, Edwards 43%
McCain 52%, Richardson 31%	Giuliani 50%, Richardson 35%

Romney 40%, Clinton 48%	F. Thompson 41%, Clinton 48%
Romney 35%, Obama 52%	F. Thompson 35%, Obama 52%
Romney 36%, Edwards 50%	F. Thompson 40%, Edwards 48%
Romney 37%, Richardson 40%	F. Thompson 40%, Richardson 39%

So you can see that Rudy and McCain are competitive, and in fact win all the matchups except Obama.  Considering the left leanings of Zogby's polls, this means the "top two" could win today, at Bush's low point, and before the long knives have come out against Obama.  This is encouraging.

But going down the list, both Romney and Fred Thompson appear to both be mired in the "outside the mainstream" category right now.  Furthermore, it appears that the voting public sees little difference between Romney and Thompson, despite the Fred! supporters claiming Fred! has great name recognition and naional appeal.

Obviously, polls can change, but right now there is no evidence that Fred Thompson would be a savior for the the Republicans.  In fact, the polls suggest he may be more of a saboteur than a savior, at least at this point. 

I have seen no evidence, either anecdotal or emperical, including my own impressions from watching the man speak, that Fred! can win, and I'm less and less convinced every day that he even really wants the job.  Fred! has a long, long way to go to convince serious Republicans that he's anything but a distraction.  I have, however, seen evidence, in the form of a whole lot of fundraising money and strengthening poll numbers, that Romney can become a serious candidate who could beat HillBama.

For now, I'll continue to leave Fred Thompson on the list of "serious GOP candidates."  I have very serious questions both about his seriousness and his candidacy, but since it's relatively early, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.  For now. 

A great article highlighting the hypocricy and deception of James Dobson.  The article points out Dobson's double-standard on his alleged principles and his assessment of candidates' character:

"Giuliani's transgression is being pro-choice, although Dobson tossed in Rudy's three marriages, support for domestic partnerships, and multiple (valid) charges of dressing in drag for good measure.

And were that the end of it, we could say that Dobson just has fundamental problems with Giuliani on the issues. But then a funny thing happened. Dobson almost immediately began talking up former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. That would be the same Romney of the "evolved" position on abortion."

Dobson has also questioned possible candidate Fred Thompson's Christianity, which doesn't leave him a lot of candidates to support.  As the article states, this appears to be a dog-and-pony show of sorts on behalf of Newt Gingrich, a candidate with no chance of even placing in the top three, and who is further away from Christian principles than any other Presidential candidate on the GOP side.

    "Dobson has repeated praised Newt as a cut above the current crop of candidates and forgiven him his adulteries, a dispensation not extended to Rudy .

    But Gingrich's antipathy for campaigning and fundraising cries out for some big league personal wealth for the general election stretch run. Maybe Dobson already envisions a Gingrich-Romney ticket storming to victory."

Far too many leaders of the "Christian right" engage in this shameless hypocricy, but Dobson takes it to a new level.  He praises Romney, whos flip-flopping on abortion, gun control, immigration, and who-knows-what-else has Republicans rightly questioning whether Romney can be counted on to stick to whatever position he's in favor of throughout the election, much less four or eight years as President.  But Giuliani is unacceptible.  Riiiiiiight.

Gingrich walked out on his wife while she was suffering fron cancer.  Yes, Giuliani's been divorced, but Newt wins the prize for biggest scumbag.  Yet it's Rudy's transgressions that are so troubling.  Mr. Dobson, did Rudy shut down the government to bolster his Presidential aspirations?  No... that was Newt.  Selfishness and arrogance are un-Christian, and Newt embodies those characteristics more than any politician this side of Bill Clinton.

Really, is a Republican Bill Clinton, minus the good looks, charm and popularity, what this country needs?  Apparently James Dobson thinks so.  I guess a President who comes into the office already corrupted is preferable to a clean President who goes off track over eight years.  And apparently a selfish, arrogant philanderer who is solidly pro-life is Christian enough for the conservative man of "conscience." And people wonder why I have little respect for the so-called Christian Right "leaders."

I hope that Newt runs, because then he and Romney will siphon off votes from each other, giving Rudy a better chance at winning the nomination.  Plus the arrogant, clueless windbag will be good for entertainment.  It's probably not what Dobson wants, but it would be exactly what he deserves.

Potential GOP Presidential also-ran Newt Gingrich continues to demonstrate the arrogance and utter cluelessness that cost him the speakership and has relegated him to joke status among GOP candidates.  Now he's dissing radio hosts.

The fact that he walked out on his wife while she was suffering with cancer should be enough to make him unacceptable to the Christian right.  The fact that he put his own book profits ahead of the Republican Party, and squandered our credibility in the process, should turn him off to the rest of the GOP that believes ethics are important in elected officials.  The fact that he selfishly threw away the very real chance of a GOP takeover of the White House in 1996 by overplaying his hand and shutting down the government because he wasn't being treated like a President of the United States should be enough to disqualify him from even a Cabinet position for the rest of his life.

Sure, Newt's "brilliant," I guess, if "brilliant" means book smart and people stupid.  But as far as politicians go, they don't get any duller.  He's a joke candidate that's getting less and less funny every time you see him.  People like that aren't important enough to blow off anybody. 

Newt, you're not "somebody."  And you never will be.  Now please shut up and let the grownups get back to their Presidential election.

Just when I thought the feminists of today couldn't get any further out of touch, Debra Dickerson proves me wrong with this howler of an article where she criticizes Michell Obama (wife of Presidential candidate and junior senator from Illinois Barak Obama) for leaving her job to help her husband's campaign.

I thought maybe the writer was being sarcastic when she said she's in a "Feminist Fury," but, as is usually the course with feminists, any irony in the article is clearly unintentional.  Just for fun, here's the article, with my comments:

"May 21, 2007 | You knew it had to happen.

Damn it all, Michelle Obama has quit her $215,000 dream job and demoted herself to queen... She's traded in her solid gold résumé, high-octane talent and role as vice president of community and external affairs at the University of Chicago Hospitals to be a professional wife and hostess."

She's giving up a good but unspectacular job to help her husband become President.  Where are her priorities???

"Now, the energy and drive that had her up jogging before dawn and a gratifying day of work and family will mainly be spent smiling for the cameras."

When did jogging before dawn become a meaningful accomplishment?  Wait, doesn't the President jog before dawn?
 
"Just as we watch curvy, healthy-looking singers and actresses like Lindsay Lohan become anorexic too-blonde hoochies before our very eyes, so we're now in danger of having to watch the political version of that process:"

I thought this comment had to be a joke, but, no, she's seriously trying to draw a parallel between Lindsay Lohan's spiral into rehab with a wife giving up her who-gives-a-rip career to help her husband become President! (God help us if she succeeds, but still...)

"Any day now, Michelle Obama's handlers will have her glued into one of those Sunday-go-to-meeting Baptist grandma crown hats while smiling vapidly for hours at a time. When, of course, she's not staring moonstruck, à la Nancy Reagan, at her moon doggie god-husband who's not one bit smarter than she is."

I'm convinced this was written on a dare, as in "I dare you to find a way to fit Lindsay Lohan and Nancy Reagan into the same paragraph while somehow remotely making this tie in with the point of your article."  Well, she won the bet and the only victims are the people who can't stand poorly-written articles.

"Being president will be hard. So will being first lady for the brilliant Michelle -- imagine, having to begin all your sentences with "My husband and I..."

Um... most wives do acknowledge their husbands from time to time.  Even those who have full-time jobs.  In fact... don't tell anybody this... but this one time... my wife began a sentence with "My husband and I..."  shhhhhh!  This is just between you and me.

"I'm in a feminist fury about Michelle"
 
I'm in a male chauvanist laughing fit.  "Femistst fury?"  You don't say.  Go on.


"I'm blaming the world and every man, woman, child and border collie in it who helps send the message that women's lives must be subordinate to everyone else's."

I'm guessing the "border collie" part was directed at John Edwards. 

"No doubt her modern, progressive husband assured her she didn't have to quit -- probably even tried to dissuade her. It's also quite likely she's making this sacrifice so her children will have at least one parent available. But the result is the same. Our daughters grow up knowing that their freedom to work at hard-won, beloved careers hinges on the doings of their husbands."

And the "doings of their husbands" comment was directed at Hillary Clinton.

"Now is the time for feminism to reach out to black women via the contingent of Obama-esque overachievers out there who ought to be chilled to the bone by Michelle's retirement from work of her own."

Something about putting "retirement" and "bone-chilling" in the same sentence strikes me as something that won't go over too well with the Senior Citizens.

"Given Secretary Rice's, not to mention Oprah's, persistent singleness, black women who have earned high status may well wonder why they should bother trying to both date and develop successful careers if one's going to cancel out the other."
 
Most women would gladly give up their "satisfying" careers, along with useful parts of their anatomies, to find Mr. Right.  But you've got to admire somebody who is so entirely clueless about the desires of most women writing about what women should be thinking.

"No other group is less likely to marry. "

So, lemme get this straight, you think the reason the marriage rate is so low among black women is because they're all so tied down to their $215,000 dream jobs??  Hold on a second, lemme run this one by some of the women in my office...

The general consensus seems to be that black women aren't getting married because they can't find good men worthy of marrying.  And not a single one has a $215,000 dream job (boy, did that question get a lot of laughs).  Every one also said they'd give up their "dream job" to be married to Obama, including the ones I talked to who are already married to someone.  Must be that lack of feminism among black women.

"Given the innate conservatism of the black community, the burden to tend to hearth and home falls disproportionately on its women,"

Say WHAAAAAAAT?  Yah, she said "innate conservatism." The reason black women have to do most of the work caring for children is becuase of all those black Republicans.  And here I thought it was because black fathers weren't sticking around.  Shows what I know.

"While I'm not blaming Michelle, I am issuing a challenge: This political and professional sutee won't end until women refuse to step into the fire, disapproval be damned. Sen. Clinton can't do everything: The rest of us women must stand our ground. Whatever else you think of Clinton, you can't deny that she blazed a trail for women's right to work and, like, be smart in public. And, man, what a beatdown she got."

Yah, front-runner Presidential candidate.  Some beatdown.

"Linda Hirshman was an early observer of the phenomenon of top-tier women leading the retreat back to the kitchen. Following up a controversial article, "Homeward Bound," with an equally controversial book, "Get to Work," she harshly chastised elite, well-educated women for choosing not to work once they married high earners. Using census data and interviews, she argues that:

As a result of feminist efforts -- and larger economic trends -- the percentage of [working] women ... rose robustly through the 1980s and early '90s. But then the pace slowed. The census numbers for all working mothers leveled off around 1990 and have fallen modestly since 1998. In interviews, women with enough money to quit work say they are choosing to opt out. Their words conceal a crucial reality: the belief that women are responsible for child-rearing and homemaking was largely untouched by decades of workplace feminism ... Among the affluent-educated-married population, women are letting their careers slide to tend the home fires. If my interviewees are working, they work largely part time, and their part-time careers are not putting them in the executive suite."

I honestly wonder if the brains of feminists like these are miswired.  Do they never come in contact with real women, or are they so dense that they just don't get it?  Women aren't leaving the workforce because they have to, but because they want to.  They could afford all kinds of options, including marrying a stay-at-home dad.  What do they do?  They marry a high-earner and choose to stay home and raise kids.

Very few men dream of marrying Mrs. Right and raising children.  But most women do.  And it has nothing to do with what society is saying.  It's the same reason why women find masculine men sexy and are repelled by wussies.  When you're talking about people who can write their own ticket, you can't seriously expect anybody to buy your line of bunk that they're being "forced" to stay at home and raise kids, anymore than they're "forced" to buy that vacation home, or "forced" to get a luxury car.  Not the yacht... anything but the yacht.

"What can Michelle do? If Obama wins, she should go for it and take on a meaningful public policy role, à la Hillary Clinton's healthcare work. Just a lot more carefully."

The self-parody in this article continues.

Feminism is rightfully criticized for being irrelevant to black women and ignoring their issues. When it's not plain arrogant, that is. An excellent example of mainstream feminism's high-handedness is Maureen Dowd's recent petty bitching about Michelle's jabs at her husband on the campaign trail.

Apparently the author still holds out home that feminism is relevant to anybody.  Maybe there's a border collie or two who still believes this nonsense, but not the smart ones.

"black men have worked hard to reinforce the image of feminism as not just "white," not just lesbian, not just a plot to make contented black women unhappy with their lot but also (as usual) a war against black men. "

Oh, such ignorance, to think feminism is a war against black men.  Don't they realize it's a war against all men, and apparently children and the hapless border collie as well?  Stop acting like such victims, geez!

"Now is the perfect opportunity for the movement to reach out to black women by embracing Michelle and black women's causes in general. Progressive women should be working their way toward the middle ground a political wife must occupy and politely engineer ways in which Michelle can put her postelection time, win or lose, to worthy causes important to the black community -- welfare-to-work, hiring and job training, for example."

Job training - YES!  Please, oh PLEASE, God, let Michelle Obama's postelection job be to train her hsband to find another line of work aside from President.  P-L-E-A-S-E!!!

Well, that was fun.  Nothing like unintentional irony to bringhten up the afternoon.  These feminists are cute, in a clueless book nerd sort of way.

I was all ready to write four posts, each one highlighting why each of the "top four" Republican candidates - Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson and John McCain - would be an excellent nominee.  I thought any one of those four could hold their own agains HillBama.

I've changed my mind. 

There are only three candidates in the Republican field, two declared and one undeclared, who are strong, and one "front-runner" who would be a complete disaster for the party and the nation if he got the Republican nomination.  John McCain is the complete disaster.

Fortunately, of the four, he's also the weakest, and his latest sellout on immigration has probably sealed his fate for good.

But make no mistake of it, while the other three have conservative credentials and can rally the base (yes, even the "pro-choice" Giulianai), McCain is not conservative, because he sells out his principles (if he has any) and achieves liberal results.

John McCain is proof positive that being pro-life doesn't in any way make you a conservative.  He sold us out on the judges while pro-choice senators were willing to fight.  He gave us McCain-Feingold.  And he sold us out again on immigration.  Giuliani would never do this kind of thing.

In fact, standing him next to Rudy also highlights the other reality, which is you don't have to be pro-life to be conservative.  It's very obvious which of those two would fight for conservative ideas, which one would better protect this country, which one would get conservative results,and which one would appoint conservative judges, and it sure as heck isn't the pro-life "hawk" McCain.

No, you can stick McCain with Chuck Hagel and the pro-life Democrat from Pennsylvania, and you'll be hard-pressed to find an ounce of conservatism between the three of them.

Enough is enough.  Say goodbye to McCain.  I'm focusing on getting a Republican elected, and he's no Republican.

A place to go to unload yourpet peeve, MyBiggestComplaint.com.

And here's my pet peeve about guys in my office who can't hit the toilet.

Mike Gallagher doesn't come out and endorse Rudy Giuliani, but he clearly states the reasons why Republicans need to give him a serious look:

"Let's face it, most of the men up on that stage last night are nice guys.  Pleasant, affable fellows all.  With perhaps one exception.  Rudy Guiliani is a lot of things, but a touchy-feely nice guy he is not.  He's tough, edgy, to-the-point, and capable of going toe-to-toe with anyone who crosses him. 

Do you really think Hillary Clinton would best him in a debate?  Let them discuss 9/11 and her previous support of the war on terror and he'll make mincemeat out of her."

More than that, Giuliani is the one candidate who Americans can count on to stare down the terrorists without blinking.  With McCain's vacillations about Guantanamo and his penchant for trying to appease the media, I can't even say that about the senator, although he's probably a close second on this one.

Bottom line, Giuliani is the one candidate the terrorists fear the most.  He stared down the Mafia, putting himself at risk doing so, he stared down the criminals and their coddlers in NYC, and he had no trouble putting Ron Paul in his place over his nutty assertion that we were to blame for 9/11.

More than ever, we need a tough-as-nails President who will not budge on the Global War on Terror and who gets results.  There's only one candidate who fits that description right now.

What's easier than picking on Ron Paul?

Picking on Michael Moore, of course.

Yah, it was like watching Barry Bonds at a little league game, but, still, that video was hilarious!  My one problem: Thompson wasn't smoking the cigar.  Did anybody else have a Monica Lewinsky flashback when they saw Fred chomping on the unlit cigar?

I'll give Thompson credit, he's got the "presence" part nailed like nobody else in the race.  I'm just not he's the one to lead the Republicans out of the wilderness.  And I have serious concerns about some of his vocal supporters - you are judged by the company you keep. 

It wasn't exactly what you'd call a fair fight, but you can view the take-down here.  Granted, Ran Paul is little more than a part of the circus freak show that is "the other guys running," and is pretty harmless as far as deranged kooks go.  Still, it was a great line, and it brings back into focus why Giuliani is the one candidate that the terrorists do not want to see as President.

As I was watching the Republican Presidential debate yesterday, I was thinking that we have three solid candidates (Giuliani, McCain and Romney) who have thrown their hats in the ring, one who might (Fred Thompson) and a supporting cast that is one clown short of a circus.

But wait!  New Gingrich is considering throwing his floppy shoe into the ring.  Hey, somebody has to finish fifth.  So sometime around September, the circus will be complete.  I can't wait until he shows up at the debates, that'll be good entertainment.

Ray Robison at American Thinker has an article providing additional proof that there was in fact a connection between al Quaeda and Saddam Hussein.

According to the article, Saddam was utilizing al Quaeda proxies in Somalia to attack American interests.  This is corroborated both from information obtained from Iraq and al Quaeda itself.

This is in addition to the irrefutable evidence that Saddam was aiding and abetting Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, allowing sanctuary in Iraq and providing him with medical care.  al-Zarqawi went on to lead al Quaeda in Iraq, which until recently was working side by side with the pro-Saddam "insurgents" after the fall of Baghdad.

Liberals would like to think that America created the terrorist monster, and if we just went away, so would the problem.  They like to think that Saddam posed no threat either to the region or to the United States.  They like to think that this is all George Bush's fault, that the world was safer with Saddam in power, and that all these terrorists in Iraq were just simple people who wouldn't be doing any harm anywhere if we hadn't invaded Iraq. 
Liberals would like to think that because they really believe these people are good people who are oppressed and misunderstood.

The facts show just the opposite.  Saddam was using his resources to forment terrorism throughout the region, including suicide bombers in Israel, coddling al-Zarqawi and (as the article points out) using al Quaeda to carry out his revenge against the US. 

The al Quaeda that has been captured in Iraq and elsewhere are terrorists looking for a battle, not innocent people who are fighting oppression.  The documents and statements made public show that these people are seeking to create and oppressive Islamic hegemony in the region, not free themselves from oppression.  They live to kill and die.

Saddam or no Saddam, American troops or no American troops, the problem of Islamic terrorism would not go away.  in fact, having the dictator still in power, spreading his oil money to terrorists throughout the region would make things much worse.

I applaud efforts by other conservatives to aggressively attack the issue of homosexuality.  I wholeheartedly agree that homosexuality has no place in our military and I oppose the government recognition of same-sex marriages.

But while I applaud these efforts, I feel that my fellow conservatives have their priorities out of whack, just a little.  Yes, we should stand up against the efforts to mainstream homosexual behavior, but there are other behaviors that are more immoral, and which conservatives are dropping the ball. 

I speaking in particular about adultery.  No, not all sins are created equal.  The Biblical admonition against adultery is clearly stated in the Ten Commandments, while the declaration that homosexuality is a sin requires considerably more digging to find and isn't nearly as clearly prohibited.

The negative effects of adultery are also more prevalent and measurable.  Adultery contributes to the depressingly high divorce rate, the number of children in single-parent households, the decreasing respect children have for their parents and the declining rate of marriage.

The thought of being cheated on by my wife certainly gave me pause myself before deciding to tie the knot.  The stories are all over the place.  And, unfortunately, it's become all too acceptible.

But it isn't.  Adultery isn't acceptible, and it shouldn't be treated as second-class immorality.  By definition, it is not a victimless crime, and nobody has a right to treat somebody they love and trust in such a way.  By any objective standard, the impact of adultery on society is much, much worse than the impact of homosexuality, and that's not an argument for mainstreaming homosexuality.  Just the opposite - it's time to take a hard stance against adultery.

From a political standpoint, outlawing adultery is far too difficult and conterproductive, but there is something we can do that would put every government employee on the same standing as our military - fire government employees who commit adultery. 

Why not?  We have this rule for our men and women in arms, why not our police, fire fighters, teachers, FBI agents, and those many good folks we lovingly refer to as "bureaucrats" who get a nice pension and salary for doing next to nothing?  And then let's expand it so private employers can also fire adulterous employees without fear of civil action being taken against them.  If they're willing to betray their spouses, how can we trust them in the workplace?  I never made a solemn pledge to love, honor and cherish my boss.  I'd say a marriage easily trumps an employment contract.

Now, I'm sure people will come back and say we can't have empoyers snooping around their employees' personal lives, and I agree that, when you're off the clock, your employer shouldn't be allowed to pry into your personal business.  But many of these affairs find their way into the workplace.  Pick up a newspaper to see the latest story about a police lieutenant accused of promoting officers who he slept with.  And then see how the scumbag initially denies that anything happened, and then undoubtedly claims it was in fact adultery, but "only" adultery, and not a violation of workplace rules.   Many of these affairs happen between coworkers, or with the company (or taxpayer-funded) email, phones or Internet. 

We wouldn't need Human Resources to go snoop in people's bedrooms and find the dirty laundry, employees are bringing the dirty laundry to work with them every day.  Instead of allowing these bad apples to tarnish the good reputation of the majority of people who don't engage in this garbage by covering up and apologizing for them, let's show them the door.  I guarantee that if somebody thought that screwing around on their spouse with their coworker could cost them their job, they'd give a lot more thought to using the free marriage counseling sessons provided by Employee Assistance than risk their career.

People we trust, like police and fire fighters, should be held to high standards of decency.  Allowing these departments to continue to tarnish themselves with the ubiquitous stories of philandering doesn't do anybody a service.  If we insist that cops who hit the bottle receive counseling or risk losing their job, then cops so should cops who are cheating on their spouses.  You think people don't notice, or don't care?  We owe it to ourselves to demand the best from people.

So whose going to beat the drum with me on this?

Former Solicitor General Ted Olson, who many feel would make an excellent Supreme Court appointment in his own right, has endorsed Giulianai for President, based in large part on Rudy's judgement in choosing the best judges.

"I know the qualities he will look for in the persons he will appoint to the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts: Individuals of talent, quality, experience, integrity, intellect and conscious of constitutional limits on judicial authority; men and women who will respect and defer to the wisdom of the framers of the Constitution and the rights of the citizens to make policy through their elected representatives. Jurists in the mold of Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito and Chief Justices Rehnquist and Roberts.

I know this because I have known Rudy Giuliani for 25 years. We first met when we served together in the Justice Department in the early years of the Reagan administration, where Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito were young lawyers honing their conservative legal instincts, and where jurists such as Bork, Scalia, and Thomas were first being considered for judicial positions. We have been close friends and colleagues ever since."

This is no small endorsement.  Olson is one of a very small number of people in the country that really knows what he's talking about when it comes to judicial appointments.  As we know from past experience, being a conservative president does not mean knowing how to pick the right judges.  "Pro-Life" President George H W Bush gave us Souter, who is every bit as reliable a liberal as any "Pro-Choice" Clinton appointee.  Even conservative hero Ronald Reagan's appointment record was spotty.

Being a conservative at heart doesn't mean you'll have the brains to pick the right judges.  Giulianai's experience gives him an edge that no other candidate has when it comes to appointing the right kind of judges, and Olson knows a thing or two about whether Rudy has the brains to pick the right judges.

We can talk all we want about whose "more Christian" and whose "more Pro-Life," but if we don't get good judges who will interpret law instead of creating it out of whole cloth, we will do nothing but go another generation paying lip service to conservative principles without making any headway.

Let's face it, thanks in large part to his poor appointments, and those of his successor, Reagan's legacy to conservatism was to make conservatives feel good without really accomplishing anything meaningful on the legislative front.  Since Reagan, the courts have continued to chip away at the things conservatives hold dear, assisted in large part by Reagan's own appointments.  We can't afford another generation of poor judicial appointments to take away the things we fight so hard to win at the ballot box. 

 We need a President who will deliver conservative results, even if that President isn't the "most conservative" candidate in the field.  Rudy is the one candidate who has done just that as Mayor, and we should pay attention when people like Olson tell us he'll deliver the same results on judicial appointments.