Republican Speeches

Ok, credit where credit is due; Palin gave a good speech and I would like to give credit to who ever wrote it for her. She recited it well.

Apparently being the Mayor of a town of 8,000 people in Alaska does make you more qualified to be president than someone who has more political experience than Hillary Clinton and Bush did before he was elected President and someone who graduated from Harvard and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago, a University neither McCain nor Palin could ever even dream of attending. And apparently, Palin is even more qualified than the top of her ticket since he has never held an executive office and has never had to lead anyone. So, creating ordinances to deal with raccoons in people's trash cans is the type of experience America needs when that call comes in at three in the morning and the Russian bear in trying to get in through our door.

I didn't catch Romney's speech but what really stood out was Giulani's speech. Not only did he sound like he was telling his estranged children a bed time story which he made up as he went along but I was surprised about how either wrong he was about 90% of it or how he was flat out lying through his teeth.

Here's his speech and my retort in red:

Almost exactly one year ago during a Republican presidential debate in Durham, N.H., I said that if I weren't running for president myself, I'd be supporting John McCain. Well, I'm not, (Thankfully) and I do. How many times has he said "I do"?

Every four years, we are told that this presidential election is the most important election of our lifetime. This year — 2008 — IS the most important. It wouldn't have been if the Supreme Court hadn't handed Bush the job in 2000.

This has already been historic. It is the longest presidential campaign in history. And it sometimes felt even longer. Longer? As in one leg longer than the other? Reminds me of what happened to McCain's first wife before he cheated on her and then dumped her for a rich cheerleader 16 years her junior and then married a month after his divorce was final.

The American people realize this election represents a turning point. In two months they will decide the future direction of our nation. It's a decision to follow one path or another. In other words, the same path as Bush or a completely new one.

"We the people" — the citizens of the United States — get to decide our next president ... not the media, not Hollywood celebrities, not anyone else. Well, actually, in the past two elections it has been shady local governments, the Electoral College and the Republican appointed Supreme Court.

This is a time for choosing — and to those Americans who still feel torn in this election, I'd like to suggest one way to think about the choice you have to make in 2008:

You're hiring someone to do a job — an important job that involves the safety and security of your family. But isn't part of the job also making sure your family doesn't go broke and has food to eat and has an income? Imagine that you have two job applications in your hand — with the names and party affiliations taken off the top. They're both good and patriotic men — with very different life experiences that have led them to this moment in history.

You've got to make this decision right. Who would you hire? The Legacy student who got in to the Naval Academy because of his parents and grandparents and graduated 894th out of 899 from the Naval Academy or the one who got a B.A. in Political Science and International Relations From Columbia University and then later graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard with a law degree where he became the first black President of the Harvard Law Review managing a staff of 80 people?

On the one hand, you've got a man who has dedicated his life to the service of his country. He's been tested time and again by crisis. He's passed every test. Actually, you have two who have dedicated their life to the service of their country; one happened to do it with guns and firepower the other did it with his organizational skills.

Even his adversaries acknowledge that he is a true American hero. He loves America as we all do — but he's sacrificed for it as few do. It's not like he volunteered to be a POW. As a young man, he joined the military ... and being a "Top Gun" kind of guy, he became a fighter pilot. He was on a mission over Hanoi when his plane was shot down.

He was tortured in a POW camp, but he refused his captors' offers of early release. Because this is a man who believes in serving a cause greater than self-interest. He came home a national hero.

He had earned a life of peace and quiet, but he was called to public service again, running for Congress and then the Senate as a proud foot soldier in the Reagan revolution. His principled independence never wavered. He stood up to special interests, fought for fiscal discipline, ethics reform and a strong national defense. So where does the Keating 5 play into ethics?

That's one man.

On the other hand, you have a résumé from a gifted man with an Ivy League education. Ok, so he's a self made, smart, educated man. I can already see the contrast between him McCain and Bush. He worked as a community organizer, and immersed himself in Chicago machine politics. Except for the fact that he never held office in the city of Chicago. Then he ran for the state legislature — where nearly 130 times he was unable to make a decision yes or no. He simply voted "present." You mean like not being able to decide if condoms can help prevent the spread of AIDS or trying to decide how many houses you own?

As mayor of New York City, I never got a chance to vote "present." And you know, when you're president of the United States, you can't just vote "present." You must make decisions. McCain has made some "tough decisions" too. Such as, "should I divorce my old, fat, crippled wife for a young rich cheerleader who can launch my political career?"

A few years later, he ran for the U.S. Senate. He won and has spent most of his time as a "celebrity senator." As opposed to McCain and Giuliani who have both been on Saturday Night Live and are typically seen front row of big name boxing matches? No leadership or major legislation to speak of. Except his leadership in the community, his leadership of the Harvard Law Review, his state legislation on tax cuts for families with children, on making it mandatory for police to video tape murder suspect interrogations and his work with Lugar in securing Russia's nuclear arsenal and keeping it off the black market, among others. His rise is remarkable in its own right — it's the kind of thing that could happen only in America. But he's never run a city, never run a state, never run a business. Neither has McCain. McCain's story could actually happen anywhere. Children born to powerful families and marrying into wealth somehow shuttled him to the rank of the richest and most powerful people in the Senate.

He's never had to lead people in crisis. Neither has McCain or Palin. In fact, McCain has never had any combat command or ever led any troops into battle. His only executive assignment was a peace time flight squadron he trained.

This is not a personal attack ... it's a statement of fact — Barack Obama has never led anything. Again, except for an entire community and the staff of the prestigeous Harvard Law Review which is more than McCain can say.

Nothing. Nada. McCain, McCain

The choice in this election comes down to substance over style. John has been tested. Barack Obama has not. Well, McCain certainly doesn't have style and I would say it's a leap of faith that he has substance. This is a guy who dumps his wife for a rich woman 17 years younger than he and flip flops on everything from tax cuts, abortion, torture and his own religion. How's that for substance?

Tough times require strong leadership, and this is no time for on-the-job training. Which is why Palin needs to go back to Alaska and get her first passport signed.

It's about who can answer that crisis call — yes, Hillary, at 3 o'clock in the morning. McCain wouldn't even hear the phone ring.

Well, no one can look at John McCain and say that he is not ready to be commander in chief. Are you kidding, no one could look at him and say he wasn't ready for a nursing home.

So, our opponents want to reframe the debate. They would have you believe that this election is about change versus more of the same. But that's really a false choice. Because "change" is not a destination ... just as "hope" is not a strategy. So I suppose choosing to invade Iraq was a good strategy?

John McCain will bring about the change that will create jobs and prosperity. How? He will lower taxes so our economy can grow. He will lower taxes on people making over $200,000 per year but his tax cuts will actually be less than Obama's for everyone else. He will reduce government spending to strengthen our dollar. How, by spending 100 years in Iraq and giving more subsidies to drill for oil in deep water? He will expand free trade so we can be even more competitive. So CEO's severance packages will be more competitive. He will lead us toward an America that will be independent of foreign oil by an all-of-the-above approach, including nuclear power and offshore drilling. Really? So you are saying that America has enough oil reserves to meet all of our demands for the next 50 years; all we have to do is drill in ANWR?? If that were the case we would already be doing it. A Republican that will get us off foreign oil, that will be the day as Republican candidates wouldn't exist without oil money. They do what they are told, if that is invading Iraq that's what they do, if that's buying from the Saudi's that's what they will do.

This is the kind of change we need. Actually, a little change is all you will have left after McCain gives all your money away to top corporations who raise your gas prices and exports your jobs. Hopefully that change will be enough to pay your mortgage even though your tax dollars were already used to bail out banks and mortgage companies who thought it was a good idea to give loans to homeless people.

And he will keep us on offense against terrorism at home and abroad. Offense is what we are scared of. What would be nice is to actually attack the right countries and finish the job before we move on to our next conquest. For four days in Denver and for the past 18 months, Democrats have been afraid to use the words "Islamic terrorism." During their convention, the Democrats rarely mentioned the attacks of Sept. 11. But you sure do, in fact, your scare tactics are all you guys have. Not once in the Republican convention mentioned failure of intelligence in Iraq.

They are in a state of denial about the threat that faces us now and in the future. No actually, they are in denial of the made up threats such as Iraq and very aware of the real threats in Afghanistan which McCain and Bush both ignored. During the Democrats "denial" both Iran and N. Korea have gone or are about to go Nuclear. It appears the Bush policies of threat and intimidation have only made other nations realize they need to build nuclear weapons to deter the US from invading their country and taking their resources. Bang up foreign policy Mr. Republican.

You need to face your enemy in order to defeat them. John McCain will face this threat and lead us on to victory. Where, In Iraq, Georgia, certainly not in Afghanistan where the terrorists are.

Look at just one example in a lifetime of principled stands — John McCain's support for the troop surge in Iraq. But then there's his support for the war in Iraq which is the main question. And let's be honest, the troop surge is not the only or even main reason violence is down. When we stop paying off the militias we will see what happens. McCain thought this war would be over in 3 weeks. If you keep guessing, odds are you will eventually guess the right outcome even if it is for the wrong reasons. The Democratic Party had given up on Iraq. Or you could say they had given up on our soldiers being used as cannon fodder and Iraq sitting on billions of dollars while the American tax payer flipped the bill. And I believe, ladies and gentlemen, that when they gave up on Iraq they were giving up on America. No they were giving up on Imperialism, high oil prices, connected military contractors, spending 450 million per day and troops in body bags. The Democratic leader in the Senate said so: "America has lost." Quite the opposite, we said we won, let's go home. The objectives were to get the WMD's; there were none so we can check that off the list, remove Saddam, check, hold elections and install a new government, check check, train the Iraqi army and get oil prices to record highs, check, check. Mission Accomplished; albeit, 4 years too late.

Well, if America lost, who won? Al-Qaeda? Bin Laden? Wait, are we talking about Iraq or Afghanistan? Don't change the subject, Bin Laden was never in Iraq and Al-Qaeda wasn't there until we got there. Bin Laden certainly hasn't lost anything except he had to trade one cave for another. In the single biggest policy decision of this election, John McCain got it right, and Barack Obama got it wrong. No, McFrankencain was wrong about invading Iraq and Obama was right. Obama was right about meeting with Iran which Rice eventually did and Obama was right in saying that we should have never lost focus on Afghanistan and let the person who attacked us get away.

If Barack Obama had been president, there would have been no troop surge and our troops would have been withdrawn in defeat. If Obama would have been President there would have been no war in Iraq, there would be no terrorists in Iraq, oil wouldn't be at an all time high, the dollar wouldn't be at an all time low and Bin Laden would be dead now and Afghanistan would be secure. Iraq and Iran would have probably gone to war with each other agian taking care of both problems for us.

Sen. McCain was the candidate most associated with the surge. You mean the surge the administration was told they needed from the get go? And it was unpopular. And it is also not the only reason the violence in Iraq is down now.

What do you think most other candidates would have done in that situation? They would have acted in their own self-interest by changing their position. How many times have we seen Barack Obama do that? I don't know but I'll bet it isn't as many as McCain.

Obama was going to take public financing for his campaign, until he didn't. McCain was for abortion then against it.

Obama was against wiretapping before he voted for it. McCain voted against the tax cuts and now wants to keep the tax cuts; was against torture and then voted for it.

When speaking to a pro-Israel group, Obama favored an undivided Jerusalem. Until the very next day when he changed his mind. McCain was Episcopalian and then he was Baptist. Oh, and good thing neither of them are running for the presidency of Israel.

I hope for his sake, Joe Biden got that VP thing in writing.

John McCain said, I'd rather lose an election than a war. Because that's John McCain. Wow, he should have been a philosopher.

When Russia rolled over Georgia, John McCain knew exactly how to respond. How did he respond, by saying "we are all Georgians"?? Wow, Russia will think twice before they do that again. Way to stand strong against aggression and tyranny. Oh wait, you voted for Iraq... My bad.

Having been to that part of the world many times and having developed a clear worldview over many years, John knew where he stood. Within hours, he established a very strong, informed position that let the world know exactly how he'll respond as president. At exactly the right time, John McCain said, "We're all Georgians." That's what I thought. I am sure the Russians are trembling in their boots.

Obama's first instinct was to create a moral equivalency — that "both sides" should "show restraint." The same moral equivalency that he has displayed in discussing the Palestinian Authority and the state of Israel. And he is right. Fist off, I love how it's ok when we go to war for oil but when Russia goes to war for oil pipelines it's somehow evil. Israel shouldn't kill and displace any Palestinian on a whim or because God supposedly said they could.

Later, after discussing it with his 300 foreign policy advisers, he changed his position and suggested that "the UN Security Council" could find a solution. Really, he has 300? Do they all travel with him on his bus and plane at the same time? Apparently, none of his 300 advisers told him that Russia has a veto on any U.N. action. That's because according to Article 27 of the UN Charter, a party involved in the conflict must abstain from voting. Surely with all of McCain and Palin's infinite wisdom on foreign policy and international affairs they would know that this is the case. Either they don't know, exposing their lack of knowledge on such affairs or they allowed Guiliani to lie on their behalf. Finally Obama put out a statement that looked ... well, it looked a lot like John McCain's. Which was of no significance to begin with and accomplished nothing.

Here's some free advice: Sen. Obama, next time just call John McCain. Unless of course you wan't to know how the UN works or want to learn about Iraq's nuclear weapon program.

Like Ronald Reagan, John McCain will enlarge our party. And like Bush, will also enlarge our government, tax burden and further decline America's staning in the world. He's the candidate with the real record of bipartisan cooperation. As is Obama. He's the candidate who can credibly reach out for the votes of Independents and Democrats. Or maybe just Lieberman.

In choosing Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate, John McCain has chosen the future. The only future I see with her is a bunch of trailers parked out on the White House lawn. Gov. Palin represents a new generation...of white trash. She's already one of the most successful governors in America — and the most popular. She hasn't even completed one term and has fired all her adversaries. And she already has more executive experience than the entire Democratic ticket. I was the executive of my lemonade stand when I was 9 years old, it doesn't mean I am ready to lead the free world. She's led a "city" (small town) and a state. One of the least populous states in the union. She's reduced taxes and government spending. They pay taxes in Alaska?

And she's actually done something about moving America toward energy independence — taking on the oil companies while encouraging more energy exploration here at home. How, by marrying a guy who works for one? Ya, I am sure she is really tough on BP.

Taxpayers have an advocate in Sarah Palin — she even sold the former governor's private plane on E-Bay. She's the governor of Alaska, where would she possibly need to go? Does this mean she will sell Airforce 1?

And as a former U.S. attorney, I am impressed by her success in combating corruption — when she found unethical and illegal behavior among the power-brokers of her own party, (They can't be hard to find, she probably has a house next to Ted Stevens) she did not hesitate — she acted courageously and independently. That's the kind of reformer we need — she shook up Alaska. She'll shake up Washington. By the number of kids she has, I think she's been shaking more than Alaska.

And we sure need that. Well, with a little Viagra, I think that's what McCain is hoping for.

And as we look to the future never let us forget that — when we are at our best — we are the party that expands freedom. Such as the Patriot Act, Expanding wiretaping, and holding prisoners without charging them for years at a time. We began as a party dedicated to freeing people from slavery. Everything goes in cycles. ... And we are still the party that is willing to fight for freedom at home and around the world. Or at least fighting for the freedom of corporate interests abroad. We are the party that wants to expand individual freedom (unless you are gay, a woman, want to use the internet, watch tv or listen to the radio but if you want the freedom to take a gun to school we've got your back) and economic freedom (for Exxon and people who want to use offshore tax shelters and outsource American jobs) ... because we believe that the secret of America's success is not central government, it is self-government. Because self government worked so well for Enron, the mortgage and oil industries. We are the party that believes in giving workers the right to work...for less, especially if you are an illegal immigrant and it means higher corporate profits. The party that believes parents should choose where their children go to school. Everyone is free to choose where they send their kids to school. It's not illegal to move to another neighborhood or send your kids to any private school of your choosing. Where are you going with this?

And we are the party that believes unapologetically in America's essential greatness (And no one else's) — that we are a shining city on the hill, a beacon of freedom that inspires people everywhere to reach for a better world.

So my fellow Republicans and my fellow Americans — over the next eight weeks, remember that the results of this election are in your hands. You get to determine America's future. You can decide America's (same) direction.

Thank you very much. And God Bless America...and no one else.

With that much red ink, he would have probably received an F, if this were a High School paper.