By Emily Geiger

Okay, this is an easy one. Are these “famous” New Yorkers (most of which aren’t famous enough for me to actually have heard of) really stupid enough to make Rudy Giuliani their posterboy? And are they really stupid enough to attack Iowa Sen. Chuck “Choir Boy” Grassley?

Really, if you are going to take a stand behind something, stake your city’s reputation behind something, do you really want it to be this?

Apparently they are too stupid to realize that they are only proving Grassley’s point with their obnoxious and over-zealous overreaction to Grassley’s typically “Iowa nice” description of Rudy Giuliani.

By Emily Geiger

Okay, so I have to say that I’m not quite to the point of getting out the pom poms for John McCain like Nathan is. I do think McCain will be strong on national security, which is obviously a plus.

I guess I look at it like this: if I can’t have Huckabee (which, loyalist that I am, I haven’t totally given up on yet) that means my choices are McCain or Romney. If you’ve been reading this blog for long, you know how I feel about Romney. He’s changed his mind so many times and he’s been caught in so many lies, I just don’t trust a word that comes out of his mouth. Bottom line: even if I don’t agree with him on everything, I think you can at least believe what John McCain says.

That being said, I still think there is a glimmer of hope that the candidate from Hope can rack up a decent number of delegates on Super Tuesday… I don’t know if he can get enough to keep him in this thing, but perhaps enough to make him a power player at convention.

Now to the CNN debate…

I think McCain did just an OK job. In typical John McCain fashion, he tends to stumble and fumble in his speech a bit. I do think he came across as very sincere, and people appreciate that.

I thought the first part of the debate was a little Mitt-heavy in terms of questions asked by the moderators. Then, Huckabee started giving some strong answers, and I think he started getting some more time. Once again, I think Huckabee came across as very at-ease, very sincere, extremely articulate, and got a few laughs out of the audience (and even the other candidates). He had a great answer to the Sandra Day O’Connor question… turning it into a question about the pro-life cause, an issue he dominates among those candidates left in the race.

Mitt is Mitt. He seemed like he was somewhat on the defensive at this debate. He doesn’t like it when his quotes from the past are used against him, and you got the overall impression that there was a chink in his shiny armor. And he needs to get rid of that smarmy smirk he has when others are answering questions.

I almost felt bad for Ron Paul, getting cut off mid-answer by Anderson Cooper. But on the flip side, if I actually had to sit and listen to him talk, I’d be wanting Anderson Cooper to cut him off, so I guess that’s a wash.

In terms of actual content, there wasn’t much in the way of surprises. One issue on which the candidates did differentiate themselves was the economic stimulus rebates. I thought Romney’s rationale for his support of the economic stimulus rebates was weak, especially for someone who is supposed to be an economic expert. I thought Huckabee had an excellent point that investing in infrastructure would be a wiser option than giving people a few hundred bucks that the government is going to have to borrow from China so that people can go buy shoes made in China. But then I though McCain raised a good point that a big part of a recession is psychological, so in that way, rebates might be somewhat of a band-aid for the situation.

The dust-up over military withdrawal timetables was entertaining, but I think the whole debate over the GMA quote was a little nit-picky on both sides. I do think Mitt should not have used the word “timetables” in an interview on network television, and his answer for why he wouldn’t initially say whether or not he supported the surge (“Because I was governor and I was busy with state issues”) was pretty weak. And then McCain had another good point: If Romney doesn’t like people throwing mud at him, maybe he shouldn’t have started it in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Great answer from Huck on Putin and how you have to judge people by their actions because their eyes can lie (cough…. Mitt Romney… cough).

By the end of the debate, with all the questions to McCain and Romney about who would be the best commander-in-chief, the debate was getting rather lopsided again. And then we went back to Ron Paul’s rant for a while. And then finally to Huckabee for the finish as he talked about how he has the most experience to be president, what the role of government should be, and how real leaders realize the effect their decisions have on all people, even those at the bottom. Huck ended with an extremely eloquent monologue that hopefully will sway a few undecideds in Super Tuesday states.

And I’m glad to see I’m not the only one who thought Huck did well…

Your thoughts???

As Bugs Bunny would say “That’s All Folks!”

Last night’s impressive win in Florida sets the course for John McCain to be our Republican nominee. While not my first choice, I have to admit that I’m excited and ready to do all I can to elect this American Hero the 44^th President of the United States.

Florida was a decisive win for McCain for two reasons. First, it marked the first time that all the candidates participated in the same state. Up until last night Rudy Giuliani took a pass. While many of us said it was a failed strategy, the media kept him alive until it was apparent that it wasn’t going to work. Secondly, McCain had to prove that he could win a primary where only Republican’s were allowed to participate. He passed both with flying colors. The 100,000 vote margin is impressive, especially when you consider that Romney out spent him on the air waves.

Romney vowed last night to continue on with his campaign. His only problem is how much more can his bank portfolio afford? Sure he is wealthy, but I don’t see how its possible to sketch out strategy that will provide him the necessary delegates to force a brokered convention.

With McCain I’m confident that our party will remain the party dedicated to protecting our county from radical terrorists. What I’m most excited about is that with McCain, we will once again be the party of fiscal discipline.

My friends, John McCain just might be exactly what our party needs to regain its past glory.

By Emily Geiger

With Barack Obama doing so well in recent primaries, I’ve heard a lot of Republicans arguing lately over who they would prefer to be the Democratic presidential nominee. What I’m hearing is that Obama is feared more as a candidate for many reasons. First, he is an excellent communicator. Second, as various talk radio personalities have put it, he gives people the warm-fuzzies, talking about change and hope and other meaningless shinola.

But what should really scare people is his record, particularly on the life issue.

As an Illinois Senator, Barack Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act in 2002. There was a similar bill at the federal level called the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. These bills would have required abortionists who failed to kill a baby before it was removed from its mother’s body to make reasonable efforts to safe the life of the infant who was born alive.

Part of the impetus for this legislation was testimony from a registered nurse who had witnessed doctors leaving babies who had been born alive to die. There were some reports that some doctors had smothered babies born alive, and other reports that babies had been placed in buckets to drown in the “products of conception” that had been removed from the womb.

Obama heard this testimony, saw pictures of babies that were “cast aside” while other premature babies of the same age were receiving treatment and being saved. Obama was “unfazed” by the testimony and the photos, and basically said he just didn’t believe this was true. He saw this bill as making further imposition of women seeking abortions (though it had nothing to do with the woman at that point) despite the fact that even NARAL had not opposed this bill.

As a member of the Illinois Senate’s Judiciary Committee, Obama voted “present” once, and voted “no” on this bill on another occasion. At some point, the bill also went through the Health and Human Services Committee, which Obama chaired. Obama again voted against the bill, it failed in committee, and again died for that legislative session.

Even Hillary supported the federal version of this bill.

As a U.S. Senator, Obama also opposed legislation that would have criminalized the transportation of minors across state lines so they could get an abortion.

While Obama has tried to rationalize his votes on this issue, his position is indefensible. People need to know that when push comes to shove, Barack Obama is more liberal and more dangerous than Hillary. He is not the kind-hearted unifier he pretends to be.

And we need to let all of our Democratic friends in Iowa (who are patting themselves on the back for being so enlightened that they voted for this guy) the truth… that a Barack Obama presidency would be a huge step backwards in the civil rights movement (at least as it pertains to the civil rights of the unborn).

By Emily Geiger

Several weeks ago, I heard Stacey Cargill call into either Mickelson or Deace (I think it was Mickelson), not give her last name, and make accusations against Steve Scheffler and the Iowa Christian Alliance. The allegations were basically that Scheffler had let Marlene Elwell, one of the people influential in getting Scheffler involved in conservative political advocacy several years ago, use some office space in the ICA offices. Ms. Elwell then took it upon herself to make some pro-Romney calls to some Christian advocates, who then let Stacey know about the calls. Stacey alleged that Elwell was given access to the ICA phone list database.

Someone must have heard this and called Scheffler. Next thing you know, Scheffler calls in and explains what happened. It sounds like Elwell took advantage of the friendship, and Scheffler had no idea that Elwell had made pro-Romney calls from the ICA offices. He only found out about it after the fact. Further, he categorically denied that he ever gave access to the ICA database to Elwell. From what I know about Scheffler, I don’t think he’d do that, and I don’t think he’d do that for Romney. When he found out what was going on, he told Elwell she was no longer welcome to use ICA facilities.

Now, Cargill has taken these accusations of hers and filed an FEC complaint.

Here’s what I don’t get: Stacey Cargill’s mother is Barb Taylor, who is on the Board of Directors for the Iowa Christian Alliance. Don’t get me wrong, I loath Rombot more than just about anybody, but couldn’t this have been handled by the Board? Now Cargill, who claims to be a Christian conservative activist, is forcing ICA to use its precious funds to pay lawyers to fight an FEC complaint.

According to some TV news reports, Cargill is claiming that the Romney Campaign gave money to ICA. Um… newsflash: lots of campaigns give money to ICA. It’s usually only newsworthy when one doesn’t. How is that a big deal?

Maybe Stacey should have been more concerned about choosing to support a candidate with who actually had a good record on the life issue, instead of John McCain, who I heard her call in to talk radio and shill for on another occasion. What’s his lifetime pro-life rating again? Oh yeah, it’s something like 63%. Great pick, Stacey! Sounds like you’ve got a great track record for helping the conservative cause. With friends like this, who needs enemies?