Topic category: Other/General
Election Reflections: Why Vote Republican
With (1) November 7, 2006 less than six weeks away, (2) the stock market near the all-time high (having recovered from the Clinton recession and the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack), (3) employment up and unemployment down, (4) gas prices way down (hurricanes have not plagued America this year and President Bush rejected Democrat advice as to how to manage the national strategic reserve), (5) terrorists not having succeeding in making a follow-up attack on the American homeland (President Bush wisely having treated the terrorists as war enemies instead of common criminals, gone on the offensive, deprived Al Qaeda of its Afghanistan sanctuary and, as even Osama bin Laden concedes, made Iraq the central front in the War on Terror), and (6) President Bush and his fellow Republicans having joined the political battle to counteract the poisonous effect of Democrat lies constantly repeated by Democrat politicians concerned more with taking political power than taking out the terrorist enemy , buttressed by the reporting of the Leftist mainstream media led by Al Qaeda's favorite America newspaper (The New York Times) and televisions's NBC, CBS, CNN and ABC (shows like Chris Matthews' "Hardball" and Keith Olbermann's "Countdown" are virtually overlong Democrat campaign commercials larded with tripe and lacking in truth), the leftist mainstream media, having tried to push voters away from President Bush and Republicans on a daily basis since President Bush became a presidential candidate, is preparing for an election in which the Republicans keep control of both the Senate and the House.
History shows that in the midterm election after a President is re-elected, the opposition party makes gains in Congress. History showed the same thing as to the midterm election after a President is elected, but in 2002 President Bush and the Congressional Republicans made history as Republicans increased their Congressional majorities.
In 2006, control of both the Senate and the House of Representatives is at stake.
What do voters need to know?
Every House race is a contest between Speaker Dennis Hastert and Speaker wannabe Nancy "San Fran Nan" Pelosi. Does America look to San Francisco to set the tone for the nation? I doubt it.
Every House race also is a contest between Republican House Committee chairman and the Democrats who aspire to replace them. Would America benefit from THAT kind of change? NO!
Every House race also is a contest to determine whether the Bush administration should be distracted by investigations galore and impeachment proceedings instead of focused on winning the War on Terror? The Far Left Dems are salivating at the thought of paralyzing the Bush administration and impeaching President Bush, as retaliation for the impeachment of former President Clinton. John Conyers, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, lives in the hope of becoming chairman and seizing the national spotlight by leading impeachment proceedings.
Is THAT in America's best interests?
No. It's in Al Qaeda's best interests.
Every Senate race is a contest between Democrat Senate leader Harry "I killed The Patriot Act" Reid of Nevada and the conservative Republican Senator who will replace the retiring Republican Senate Majority Leader, Bill First of Tennessee.
Imagine a Senate led by Senator Reid! Then vote Republican.
Pennsylvanians, Senator Rick Santorum could well by the Senate Majority Leader if the Democrat political trickery of nominating State Treasurer Bob Casey Jr., mostly pro-life, to block Senator Santorum's re-election by winning back Santorum Democrats.
The question in Pennsylvania is whether this cunning strategy will work. The reality is that Mr. Casey would be an ineffectual rookie Senator who would vote with the Democrats to block pro-God, pro-life judges anathema to the Democrats' Far Left judicial activist/secular extremist base. Stay tuned.
With America smartly focused on terrorism and the contrast between the Republican and Democrat approaches, it is not surprising that President Clinton (intent on having Hillary run for President in 2008) has been drawing public attention and demonizing Fox News and Chris Wallace for an interview that did a bit more than give him a forum to speak (or shriek).
Dick Morris and Eileen McGowan reported it this way (and deftly let voters know that putting the Democrats in power was NOT desirable):
"From behind the benign facade and the tranquilizing smile, the real Bill Clinton emerged Sunday during Chris Wallace's interview on Fox News Channel. There he was on live television, the man those who have worked for him have come to know - the angry, sarcastic, snarling, self-righteous, bombastic bully, roused to a fever pitch. The truer the accusation, the greater the feigned indignation. Clinton jabbed his finger in Wallace's face, poking his knee, and invading the commentator's space.
"But beyond noting the ex-president's non-presidential style, it is important to answer his distortions and misrepresentations. His self-justifications constitute a mangling of the truth which only someone who once quibbled about what the 'definition of "is" is' could perform.
"Clinton told Wallace, 'There is not a living soul in the world who thought that Osama bin Laden had anything to do with Black Hawk Down.' Nobody said there was. The point of citing Somalia in the run up to 9-11 is that bin Laden told Fortune Magazine in a 1999 interview that the precipitous American pullout after Black Hawk Down convinced him that Americans would not stand up to armed resistance.
"Clinton said conservatives 'were all trying to get me to withdraw from Somalia in 1993 the next day' after the attack which killed American soldiers. But the real question was whether Clinton would honor the military's request to be allowed to stay and avenge the attack, a request he denied. The debate was not between immediate withdrawal and a six-month delay. (Then-first lady, now-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) favored the first option, by the way). The fight was over whether to attack or pull out eventually without any major offensive operations.
"The president told Wallace, 'I authorized the CIA to get groups together to try to kill bin Laden.' But actually, the 9-11 Commission was clear that the plan to kidnap Osama was derailed by Sandy Berger and George Tenet because Clinton had not yet made a finding authorizing his assassination. They were fearful that Osama would die in the kidnapping and the U.S. would be blamed for using assassination as an instrument of policy.
"Clinton claims 'the CIA and the FBI refused to certify that bin Laden was responsible [for the Cole bombing] while I was there.' But he could replace or direct his employees as he felt. His helplessness was, as usual, self-imposed.
"Why didn't the CIA and FBI realize the extent of bin Laden's involvement in terrorism? Because Clinton never took the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center sufficiently seriously. He never visited the site and his only public comment was to caution against 'over-reaction.' In his pre-9/11 memoirs, George Stephanopoulos confirms that he and others on the staff saw it as a 'failed bombing' and noted that it was far from topic A at the White House. Rather than the full-court press that the first terror attack on American soil deserved, Clinton let the investigation be handled by the FBI on location in New York without making it the national emergency it actually was.
"In my frequent phone and personal conversations with both Clintons in 1993, there was never a mention, not one, of the World Trade Center attack. It was never a subject of presidential focus.
"Failure to grasp the import of the 1993 attack led to a delay in fingering bin Laden and understanding his danger. This, in turn, led to our failure to seize him when Sudan evicted him and also to our failure to carry through with the plot to kidnap him. And, it was responsible for the failure to 'certify' him as the culprit until very late in the Clinton administration.
"The former president says, 'I worked hard to try to kill him.' If so, why did he notify Pakistan of our cruise-missile strike in time for them to warn Osama and allow him to escape? Why did he refuse to allow us to fire cruise missiles to kill bin Laden when we had the best chance, by far, in 1999? The answer to the first question -- incompetence; to the second -- he was paralyzed by fear of civilian casualties and by accusations that he was wagging the dog. The 9/11 Commission report also attributes the 1999 failure to the fear that we would be labeled trigger-happy having just bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade by mistake.
"President Clinton assumes that criticism of his failure to kill bin Laden is a 'nice little conservative hit job on me.' But he has it backwards. It is not because people are right-wingers that they criticize him over the failure to prevent 9/11. It was his failure to catch bin Laden that drove them to the right wing."
Osama was certifiable, but the Democrats did not certify him.
To put the Democrats in charge of Congress during the War on Terror, voters would have to be brainwashed, or certifiable too.
The Clinton administration treatment of Al Qaeda as a criminal nuisance was the biggest mistake.
Worse, it reflected the Democrat mind set and the Democrats and their media allies have not learned and remain determined to deny THEIR monumental mistakes and to pretend that Republicans are the gravest threat to America: to the delight of the terrorists, they have (1) tried to kill and weakened The Patriot Act; (2) exposed the immensely successful terrorist surveillance program; (3) exposed the vital monitoring of international banking transactions; (4) declared the terrorist surveillance program both unauthorized and unconstitutional (Democrat federal district judge Anna Diggs Taylor); (5) magnified every misstep and minimized or ignored every accomplishment in what President Bush and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld rightly warned would be a long and difficult war, with setbacks, and "a long, hard slough"; and (6) published out of context part of a national intelligence estimate leaked by a criminal with a political agenda that dovetailed nicely with the political agenda of The New York Times.
During the election season, Republicans need to overcome the "big lie" effect of the Democrats' constant misinformation campaigns (aided and abetted by their many mainstream media allies) and focus voters of reality.
Misinformation: President Bush deliberately misled the American people because he really wanted to be a war president instead of the education president.
Reality: There is no legitimate dispute that Saddam Hussein was a brutal tyrant who invaded Kuwait and failed to fully comply with seventeen United Nations resolutions and it was generally believed (in large part because Saddam wanted it to be believed) that he had an ample stock of weapons of mass destruction as well as a willingness to work with terrorists--example: paying the families of homicide bombers). Al Qaeda's declaration of war (which the Clinton administration failed to take seriously enough and the Bush administration finally did after September 11, 2001) made it wise for the Bush Administration to do what the Wilson administration did during World War I, the Franklin Roosevelt administration did during World War II, the Truman administration did during the Korean War and the JFK and LBJ administrations did during Vietnam: fight the enemy away from America instead of in America.
Republicans are not perfect, of course. No war ever was conducted perfectly, and no one ever will be. But the villains are the terrorists, not the Americans; appeasement is slow surrender; "cut and run" is defeat; and unconditional victory is the only sure solution.
Michael J. Gaynor
Biography - Michael J. Gaynor
Michael J. Gaynor has been practicing law in New York since 1973. A former partner at Fulton, Duncombe & Rowe and Gaynor & Bass, he is a solo practitioner admitted to practice in New York state and federal courts and an Association of the Bar of the City of New York member.
Gaynor graduated magna cum laude, with Honors in Social Science, from Hofstra University's New College, and received his J.D. degree from St. John's Law School, where he won the American Jurisprudence Award in Evidence and served as an editor of the Law Review and the St. Thomas More Institute for Legal Research. He wrote on the Pentagon Papers case for the Review and obscenity law for The Catholic Lawyer and edited the Law Review's commentary on significant developments in New York law.
The day after graduating, Gaynor joined the Fulton firm, where he focused on litigation and corporate law. In 1997 Gaynor and Emily Bass formed Gaynor & Bass and then conducted a general legal practice, emphasizing litigation, and represented corporations, individuals and a New York City labor union. Notably, Gaynor & Bass prevailed in the Second Circuit in a seminal copyright infringement case, Tasini v. New York Times, against newspaper and magazine publishers and Lexis-Nexis. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed, 7 to 2, holding that the copyrights of freelance writers had been infringed when their work was put online without permission or compensation.
Gaynor currently contributes regularly to www.MichNews.com, www.RenewAmerica.com, www.WebCommentary.com, www.PostChronicle.com and www.therealitycheck.org and has contributed to many other websites. He has written extensively on political and religious issues, notably the Terry Schiavo case, the Duke "no rape" case, ACORN and canon law, and appeared as a guest on television and radio. He was acknowledged in Until Proven Innocent, by Stuart Taylor and KC Johnson, and Culture of Corruption, by Michelle Malkin. He appeared on "Your World With Cavuto" to promote an eBay boycott that he initiated and "The World Over With Raymond Arroyo" (EWTN) to discuss the legal implications of the Schiavo case. On October 22, 2008, Gaynor was the first to report that The New York Times had killed an Obama/ACORN expose on which a Times reporter had been working with ACORN whistleblower Anita MonCrief.
Gaynor's email address is firstname.lastname@example.org.