The Cordani Project

Can Huckabee Win?

2008-02-10T13:37:00.000Z

While most of us think that John McCain, the party leaders' choice to win the Republican Primary, is on his way to an easy win, conservatives in the Midwest and south said their man, Mike Huckabee, will nto be ignored. Of the three February 9th contests, the former Arkansas governor won two of them: the louisiana primaru and the Kansas caucus -- the latter by a landslide.

Huckabee is still far behind, yet can he motivate former Romney supporters to vote for him? He would have to virtually sweep the rest of the primary in a run similar to the 2007 Colorado Rockies' playoff push and still try to sway Romney delegates to go his way. It is possible and interesting, but not what party bosses want. Republicans are used to coronations during primary season. Their only hope is that Obama and Clinton hammer at each other enough to deplete their campaign warchests before the general election and both contests go down to the wire.

Although I still believe this will be a stroll for McCain either the honest way or the party manipulation way, I will still have the popcorn ready for this. Huckabee's support is sending a clear message to the party bosses: "Don't forget the conservative base." The recent tallies for Huckabee and Ron Paul combined also do not about to a fringe group: the Washington Caucuses were so close that McCain, the conventional frontrunner, was voted against by nearly 75% of those taking part. This is not just the extreme whacko vote, these are people who thought they signed on to a party that stood for smaller government and the strength of the middle class taxpayers.

Obama and Clinton in Dogfight; McCain Struts Toward Finish

2008-02-07T02:46:00.000Z

Republicans and Democrats wanted coronations for their respective front runners. As McCain is living out the mainstream GOP fantasy, Democrats will see their candidates' campaign money depleted for the general election if The Obaminator keeps going. He and Clinton are only a few delegates apart, and they will spend enough time hammering at each other while McCain will save his war chest as he leaves his three opponents in the dust.

What gave McCain the win while more hardcore Conservatives tossed their support behind either Romney or Huckabee? According to several sound bites from local voters and radio talk show callers, it was the national security issue: McCain is the only one of the four who many rank and file GOPers saw as Commander-In-Chief material. McCain's win, however, is not a mandate on his political positions and actions. Enough conservatives are still offering clear messages that they need to be paid attention to when the general election comes. Several religious Christians selected Huckabee or Romney, depending on geography. There is also a considerable argument that there are more Ron Paul platform supporters than Ron Paul voters. While he will win the Republican Party nomination, McCain is being sent a message that fiscal and (to a degree) social conservatism should still have a powerful place in the party. McCain needs to pay attention when it comes to a potential choice for Vice President.

On the Democratic side, John Edwards knew it was time to drop out when he found that the primary on his side had devolved into a group of sheep who will do anything Bill Clinton tells them to do versus a group of clones who will do anything Ted Kennedy tells them to. Their rich donors had, for their sake, better fork over more cash soon or else their nomination winner may be borrowing money from Mike Gravel's campaign war chest./p>

Super Tuesday Is Here!

2008-02-05T18:12:00.000Z

Several states are holding primaries today. Will is be a cakewalk or a dogfight for the front-running candidates? This season, so far, had revealed a "Tale of Two Parties." While the vast majority of Democrats have been enamored with either of the party's establishment candidates (Clinton, Obama and Edwards), there is a significant amount of Republican voters going against the media and party favorites. One such candidate prematurely deemed a "front-runner" by insiders and media types, Rudolph Giuliani, struggled to register Dennis Kucinich-like approval from those casting primary ballots. Even though the other two mainstreamers, Mitt Romney and John McCain, lead in the race for delegates, significant finishes amongst the two other opponents still standing (Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul) and actor Fred Thompson show that a large amount of grass-roots republicans are resisting dictation from party leaders.

Huckabee's strong finishes in Iowa and South Carolina, as well as his still being in striking distance of the lead going into today shows the current party leadership that enough of their own still believe that faith is a positive trait for a candidate and should not be suppressed. In addition, Huckabee's presence and support is also a reminder to both parties that the United States remains strong thanks to the Judeo-Christian ethic it was built upon.

Although the media and Republican leaders have tried hard to dismiss Ron Paul, his following should not be ignored. His presence in the primary -- and support among younger Republicans -- is proof that there is still a great deal of respect amongst the citizenry for the true ideals of our Constitution. While the mainstream media marginalizes him, Paul has persevered thanks mainly to his platform and regard toward the truest principles of conservatism: a smaller government, states' rights, a stronger currency standard and putting our own country first.

Thompson, though his campaign was flawed, showed that the older generation of conservatives wanted someone with more traditional party leanings as well.

While there may not be enough final support for Paul or Huckabee to win the Republican nomination, they successfully combined to fend off more favored challengers to last this long and send a message to Republican Party leaders that they are becoming dangerously more out of touch with the voting public.

New York Regional Inteconnect Trying to Play NIce? Hold the Nose On That

2008-02-04T20:23:00.000Z

Hudson Valley Times-Herald Record Reporter Steve Israel recently interviewed Chris Thompson, President and CEO of New York Regional Interconnect on their project to run wires fro Ohio to New York City by way of several villages and towns although other viable options were available. The company is also fighting citizens groups and some grandstanding politicians on this issue. Reading the interview, one might think that Thompson was always concerned about the ramifications of the proposed route without looking for alternatives. Some history and some reading into the interview would prove the opposite.

When the NYRO project was first unveiled, the understanding was that significant amounts of unused power in the midwest can be channeled to the New York Metropolitan and surrounding region, where it would soon be in short supply relative to the population. Rather than building more plants in crowded area, it would be logical to wire in existing unused energy. The route, however, was the problem: the people who Thompson arrogantly calls "NIMBY's" were concerned over more than just big power lines. With the NYRI project would come lines that would slice villages in half and run through residential property, heavily knocking down property values. In addition, while the energy would benefit New York City, it would be the very residents who would have to deal with the structure who would have to foot the bill with higher utility costs (along with the price hike already looming at the time).

Some politicians made the fight a huge political issue. State Senator John Bonacic, who voters have barely hears a "peep" from over most of his tenure, screamed "No NYRI, No NYRI" to gain media face-time and win favor with the voters. It was no matter to him to help come up with alternative solutions to an inevitable project (see: current abuse of eminent domain case Kelo v. New London) without offering alternatives. Bonacic's opponent, Susan Zimet, brought up with two feasible routes to install the NYRI project where any aesthetic and economic damage would be minimized: the Thruway and New Jersey Corridors. Although Bonacic called Zimet "uninformed" on a local cable TV news program, those are the alternatives Thompson is finally exploring.

During the 2006 election cycle, Bonacic's only accomplishment was earmarking one million dollars for lawyers to fight NYRI. I doubt when he called Zimet "uninformed" about the situation that he understood that Congresswoman and fellow Republican Sue Kelly had already been on the case at the federal level a few months ago. She tried to keep NYRI from using the eminent domain provisions allowed in that legislation for that route.

It should also be noted that Thompson was somewhat evasive with Israel's questioning of him on issues such as burying the lines and if they are seeking alternatives in good faith rather than offering the proverbial "lip service." He conveniently placed the onus on the Public Service Commission for the final decision.

In truth, America's heavily-populated areas are going to need more power in the future and planners should be commended for at least having such foresight to pump some more energy in before a crisis strikes. Unfortunately, they forgot that real people were living in the "flyover territory" where the power lines have to go and that there are serious economic ramifications that could be minimized with a little compromise.

Media Bias Watch: New York Times PR Piece on Teddy!

2008-02-02T14:23:00.000Z

It did not take long for Liberal newsletter The New York Times to have a reporter stump for Ted Kennedy's "I Loev Obama" tour. While most of America already knows how out-of-touch this career politician is, The Times continues to try and convince us otherwise -- simply because of his last name and his ability to con young idealists into beliving his hollow words.

It is easy, however, to be considered "hip" again in Liberal circles by grabbing the coattails of the latest "falvour de jour," like Obama is (at least until after Super Tuesday). While Times writer Mark Liebovich was gushing over Kennedy, he failed to ask the question on the minds of those who know of his work: "What is his angle?"

As I had written in a previous post, if Obama keeps preaching about "change' in Washington, why would the man who represents the most self-absorbed and despicable aspects of today's political culture want to side with him? The best answers I could come up with are:

Obama is just blowing smoke about change because he had not yet come up with any udeas anyway.
In an America where Ted Kennedy is becoming increasingly more irrelevant, he needs a spotlight and some fanfare from friends in the media to stroke his ego.
Kennedy has something against one or more of the Clintons.

I would suggest a combination of all three, but the latter provokes some interest. While the RFK kids are siding with Hillary Clinton and could be a big help in her inevitable nomination, Ted spent the past few days railing against her. This blogger says it was likely beacuse of her praise for President Lyndon Johnson's work on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 without mentioning Kennedy. As an overgrown spoiled child, this is likely. Also, in Liberal circles, the Clinton name has become virtual royalty in the way the Kennedy name has enamoured the Leftist establishment for years. This might make little Teddy jealous, as he (unlike the rest of the family) has become less relevant in the Democratic party's future. I would go as far to say that Ted Kennedy's disdain for women, considering his past treatment of them, could be a factor. While gender should have no place in this discussion, Kennedy's philandering and other issues with women are well-known, but well-forgiven amongst Liberal special interest groups who think The Tedster owes them for their continued blind eye.

Clearly, the Democrats have spoken in their primary: they prefer to play the politivs of gender and race, hoping it can work in the general election against the Republican nominee's own establishment candidate. Such political strategy may have worked in the 1990s, but Liberals will find out soon that this kind of ploy has less effect than it did in the Bill Clinton era.

"The Cordan Project" Set To Go Back On the Air

2008-02-02T00:46:00.000Z

The Cordani Project will be back on the air in March. We are working with WTBQ AM/FM on two very different weekly programs. Mew Details will be available on this blog in the coming weeks.

Obama's Newest Vote Repellent: Ted Kennedy's Endorsesment of Him

2008-01-28T20:45:00.001Z

While Barack Obama's supporters may be celebrating the news that might land their candidate a Democratic Primary win, they should still worry. As Barack Obama may have fooled plenty of Americans into believing he is the man who can bring change and hope to American politics, he has just been endorsed by the man who symbolizes virtually everything that's disgusting and wrong about the Beltway: Senator Ted Kennedy.

The slovenly Leftist, who has become the very model of a modern career politician, says he will actively campaign for the political newbie. Of course, Obama will get a free pass from the mainstream media as he has had throughout the campaign (see: Association with Cornel West, being married by a black separatist minister, etc). Unfortunately for Obama, most of America outside of Massachusetts sees Kennedy as the stereotype elitist, dishonest, criminal Ultra-Liberal whose very presence is a pox on the United States government. So much for "change" from politics as usual; Kennedy's embracing of Obama's campaign insures the same plague will cloud our leadership if Oprah's favorite candidate wins. This might actually make Hillary Clinton look like the anti-establishment choice for the Democrats.

Will Obama's candidacy be scrutinized for this alliance? It's not likely, but one can be sure that when the general election comes, Kennedy's endorsement will become an albatross around Obama's neck (should he get the nomination) that moderates would see him as something of a "vote repellent" come November.

Ex-Thompson Aide: "Boycott Chick Norris"

2008-01-27T13:47:00.001Z

While Fred Thomson has bowed out of his lackluster campaign for U.S. President, one of his former Media Guys, Darrel Ng, has decided to launch an internet campaign to boycott Chuck Norris through his new website, www.boycottchucknorris.com. Apparantly, Ng is upset over Norris' endorsement of rival Republican Mike Huckabee, accusing the former Arkansas Governor of having ideas "far out of the mainstream."

I suppose with this early exit (predicted here on The Cordani Project), Ng thinks Chuck Norris is at fault. There is internet evidence that proves Norris could have that much control over such an outcome. Seriously, however, the sour loser thing does not look good on poor Darrell, who is bucking to become the political equivalent to William Hung.

Ng compares Norris' backing of Huckabee (a man Ng seems to have some serious issues with) to the likes of Ben Afffleck and Oprah Winfrey. While it is agreed that Affleck, Winfrey and others use their considerable celebrity superficial influence to push a candidate they like, Norris is different. While he is an actor, Norris is also a respected regular contributor to World Net Daily, an internet magazine. Norris has proven his political aptitude and knowledge of the nation's issues enough to not be categorized on the same level as the Sean Penns and George Clooneys of the world.

If Ng wanted to blame someone for using celebrity to push a candidacy, he need nto look further than his own boss, Fred Thompson, who thought his "Law & Order" stardom could put him in to contention while he spoke in soundbites and offered minimal substance and no ideas. His campaign should have been euthanized after New Hampshire. That, Mr. Ng, is the truth.

From the Frivolous Lawsuit Files: Hudson Valley Edition

2008-01-25T22:56:00.000Z

Recently, in the City of Newburgh, NY, police were found to have not been responsible for the death of 25-year-old Nathaniel Cobbs, who ceased to live while in police custody after committing a crime and attacking the officers when being arrested. While local race-card activists cried "police brutality" as they had so many times in the past, they again proved themselves to be the "Rabble-Rousers Who Cried 'Wolf'" In most areas, people would understand that an investigation took place and found that the criminal (not surprisingly) was responsible for his own death because his heart gave out after the drugs Cobbs took. This, however, is Newburgh. Enter Michael Sussman, a backwoods version of Alan Dershowitz and Norman Segal. Sensing a local media spotlight, Sussman springs into action, claims "racism," and immediately starts to put together a lawsuit against the same innocent police officers who were already proven guilty of nothing more than protecting the public.

The Cobbs family and Sussman tried hard to convince a jury of honest citizens that the big, bad police officers killed Cobbs with little regard for human life while he was in their custody, but they lost out to evidence. Sussman is among the plethora of lawyers in America who continue to clog the court system with frivolous lawsuits while we, the taxpayers, continue to pay for their forum for the attention they did not get as kids. Maybe one day, the taxpayers can stand up and sue the likes of Sussman, Gloria Allred, Durshowitz, The ACLU and other "activist" lawyers for our share of the free publicity these people gained that we paid for.

Michigan RIghts a Wrong

2008-01-21T23:03:00.000Z

As Eliot Spitzer sympathizers in New York (those that are left) argued the New York Governor was right to propose allowing illegal immigrants to drive in the Empire State, citing other states did so, Michigan's leaders today revoked that privilege.

While we are far from fully recovered from the political correctness movement of the 1990s, more people are standing up to such new conventional wisdom -- albeit slowly.

While Big Media continues to confuse "immigration" with "illegal immigration" when reporting, this nation continues to slide toward a Third World status. Those who continue to ignore the problem or are still unaware need only visit a large or small city and look at what has transpired. While we are still the land of opportunity for all, our nation is being abused by those who sneak in and refuse to be part of America while reaping the benefits some real citizens are unable to have (such as health care). It is time now for our leaders to enforce existing immigration laws while at the same time keeping the land of opportunity open to those who want to be Americans and earn their citizenship.

Disgraceful: Radio & Records Succumbs to Special Interest Pressure and Recinds Lifetime Achievement Award for Radio Great Bob Grant

2008-01-17T19:05:00.000Z

Add "Radio and Records" magazine to the list of cowards who bend over backwards to the demands of the new Politically Correct Thought Police. The score is now: PC Whiners 2, First Amendment 0.

Claiming it revoked the award after examining Grant's entire "body of work," R&R has set another sickening precedent in radio industry: any unbalanced self-proclaimed "activist" (re: detractor) can send an e-mail calling someone he/she does not like a "racist" and can get his/her way.

How "brave," really, is this stand against Bob Grant? While the R&R editors rail against what they call "racism," they placed noted race-baiter and rabble-rouser Al Sharpton to a special panel for its 2008 seminar!

While I can spend plenty of time on this blog defending Mr. Grant, he needs no one to come to his rescue: most people who had listened to his show with an open mind understand that he allowed more diverse voices and opinions on his program than most other shows in radio history. His show was truly a "free and open exchange of ideas and opinions" that offered very light screening and more listener access. He is the antithesis of the "racist" and other such accusations that had been thrown his way over the years. Remember, what were the sources for such accusations over the years? Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Lynn Samuels and other Leftists who used their insults to try and silence the opinions they had disdain for. In fact, Grant has taken white and black callers to task for racist comments on his show.

There are those who would bring up the Ron Brown comments, as I was listening at the time. He took responsibility for what he said then and accepted his subsequent firing gracefully. One should not that the comment was not racist, yet still inappropriate.

The fact that such an important trade magazine as "Radio and Records" would take back an award based on hearsay from hate-filled detractors says a lot about its current leadership -- especially when they are in bed with that particular opposition. They have, at least with some in this radio business, lowered the publication's relevance in the industry after this stunt.

Bloomberg's Commuter Tax: Keeping the Streets Clear For Him and His Friends

2008-01-16T17:50:00.000Z

While some readers may be aghast that I am calling New York City's Mayor Michael Bloomberg's "Congestion Pricing Plan" a "tax," the carefully-packaged plot must be accurately described as such. Media coverage of the new commuter tax took a favorable tone, as opposed to all the outrage over former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's proposed commuter tax on those living outside the city. Bloomberg was heralded by fellow elites as a great mind for making the drive around Manhattan's business and high-end districts easier for them. In the meantime, Bloomberg still looked like a "man of the people" to the public. In recent months, the publicity over the new commuter tax refurbished talks of the Mayor mulling an "independent" run for President.

To review the Bloomberg Commuter Tax, drivers would be charged an additional $8 ($21 for trucks) to be allowed to pass below 86th Street. Doing the math, a typical commuter from Orange, Rockland and Westchester Counties would have to pay an additional $2000 of their hard-earned salaries just to be able to go to work. This, of course, is added to the already-expensive road and bridge tolls along with parking lot fees and wear on one's car. It costs less to get mugged there.

While the final public hearing on the Bloomberg Commuter Tax goes on today, although there is considerable opposition to the plan as announced, the City Council will surely use this discussion as an opportunity to find another more creative but less noticeable way to rob the average commuter, like adding more toll booths to random bridges or raising other prices elsewhere.

Bloomberg tried to justify the Commuter Tax by saying it would increase use of mass transit. That might be fine for people from the immediate suburbs, but there is not a sufficient amount of trains coming from places like Orange or Dutchess Counties, where an increasing number of commuters to New York City live. If Bloomberg wants to keep the streets clean so he and his rich elite friends can use them and keep us out of their sight while doing so, then at least throw us a proverbial bone and make sure enough mass transit is offered before making an attempt to dispose of us riff-raff. This is exactly what Michael Bloomberg thinks of the same people he might soon have to rely upon as he weighs a potential run for President in 2008 or beyond.

Others are Starting to Notice

2008-01-13T13:37:00.000Z

As I had mentioned on this blog and on the radio several times, Barack Obama's celebrity campaign has been getting a free pass from the mainstream media for so long that it's hurting their former favorite Hillary Clinton. A columnist I have great respect for, Charles Krauthammer (aside from his uncanny resemblance to Adrian Monk), wrote a nice piece on this, even mentioning the Newsweek PR piece done on The Obamanator that glossed over his association with Anti-White rabble rouser Cornel West.

I suppose the whiny boomers running the media now are so afraid of being called racists for asking Mr. Obama some tough questions that they had hopes not many would notice his flaws.

I, with with low expectations, call once again on Big media to stop promoting Obama and start reporting honestly on the presidential primaries. Big Media is performing a major disservice to the American people (and Obama himself) by keeping the kid gloves on in fear of the Sharptons and Wests of the world potentially marching on their studios.

New York's State of State: Spitzer Needs To Come Through

2008-01-11T01:24:00.000Z

One would suppose it would be unwise to take much of what New York Governor Eliot Spitzer said in yesterday's State of the State address seriously, but after the Troopergate debacle and his attempt to allow illegal aliens to legally drive he just might need to come through with property tax reform to save his political life.

As it stands now, Spitzer is quite likely to be a one-term governor in New York. His approval ratings hit lows matching the likes of Jimmy Carter after hsi proposal to not require Social Security numbers to procure a driver's license in the Empire State. He certainly blew the free ride he got from state republicans when he walked through the 2006 elections without a fight and with their blessing.

Yesterday, Spitzer sounded like the man he pretended to be during his campaign: the one who wanted to see reform in Albany, improvements on the tax system and less spending. Should we, however, believe it? IF one uses his record for reference, then the answer id no. The catch, however, for Spitzer is that he needs to come through manifold to win back the voters' trust.

While Governor Spitzer proposed a "cap" on property taxes, state residents want actual reform in the archaic system that only serves to chase people out of New York. A cap might sound nice, but it would only be a band-aid while the property owners still unfairly bear the burden of school funding. If Spitzer and Albany leaders were actually xincere abuot this perennial campaign fodder, then something would have been worked out already -- this includes the Senate's plan for reform that they new wouldn't pass the Assembly. They just wanted to say they did it without really accomplishing anything.

In 2006, voters took the opportunity to kick out incompetence and warn the rest of those charged with the public trust that they were hired to do right by its citizens -- regardless of party. They won;t hesitate to do it again.

A Big Win?

2008-01-09T19:09:00.000Z

While it was important for Hillary Clinton to win the New Hampshire Primary, it seems Big Media is going a tad overboard in the result's significance. She has a big fight with Barack Obama running neck and neck with her and John Edwards not far behind, and if she took second place in New Hampshire, she would still only trail the Obama machine by a few delegates before going into the larger Clinton-friendly states. Also, a win in New Hampshire settles nothing as far as her ability to overcome the charm and charisma of The Obamanator. With the news coverage she got after losing in Iowa, it would seem the mainstream media spent a bit too much time on Clinton's tears incident and put too much emphasis on such a small state and its overall significance.

So far, both Obama and Clinton have run "celebrity" campaigns with little or no substance. Obama is a captivating speaker and Clinton has a captivating speaker on her side in the form of her husband. The democratic primary voters right now are voting like this is a high school election -- like a popularity contest. While Fred Thompson is miserably failing while employing the same strategy on the republican side, the Democratic voters are still under the spell of wither of the two front-runners. The only Democrat with a chance to win that is actually talking about the issues is John Edwards, but the polls show nobody on the Left side wants to hear about policy -- they like to hear the word "change" every other sentence than deal with how to implement it.

When will all of this backfire on the Dems? When Clinton or The Obamanator get chosen as their nominee and the demagoguery would have less of a shine when debating in a general election. While political strategists still seem to think the American people are idiots, looking down on them and insulting their intelligence will come back to bite their candidates.

"If You Can't Beat HIm, Call Him a Racist"

2008-01-09T18:47:00.000Z

Although Texas Congressman Ron Paul is still trailing in the delegates scorecard and has finished fifth in both Iowa and New Hampshire, his message must be getting out and scaring some powerful people. In a suspiciously well-timed article, The New Republic 's James Kirchick has come out with an article in an attempt to sabotage his campaign with accusations of racism and anti-semetism. He decided to dig up some ghostwritten newsletters with racist comments, of which most thinking people already know were falsely attributed to Paul, to destroy his strengthening message.

After reading this, it would likely not surprise you that Kirchick has tried this before, attempting to make a bigger story of the Stormfront issue than it really was. Apparently, when The New Republic is afraid of a true Conservative/Constitutionalist message, they become shills for their mainstream favorite son candidates.

The Sharptonesque tactics of Kerchick and the New Republic can now serve as proof that they are no better than their lowball counterparts in the New York Times.

Although he should not have to dignify such drivel, Ron Paul responded to the attack. Of course, when this was actually a news story over ten years ago, Paul had also responded to the guilt-by-association form local journalists over the issue and handled the situation properly.

A-Paul-ling - Candidate Excluded From Pre-NH Primary Debates

2008-01-07T19:03:00.000Z

Fox News is not exempt from media bias criticism, and it should be embarrassing to News Corp that they had excluded Presidential Candidate Ron Paul from its most recent debate before the New Hampshire Primary.
Citing their labeling Paul as not being a viable candidate for the Republican nomination, Fox officials only invited five of the GOP contenders to the televised forum, leaving Duncan Hunter of the sidelines as well. While the argument can be made on Hunter (who, in my humble opinion, should also have been allowed in) having little chance to make an impact in the voting, it can also be debated that Fox news had decided not to include Paul because his presence would have had an adverse impact on the media's hand-picked front-running candidates: Firstly, Paul has raised over $20 million over in recent months -- numbers in the Hilary Clinton league of fundraising formidably. Secondly, anyone with reading ability similar to the banjo player from "Deliverance" deduced the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire poll results can see Paul as a legitimate candidate for the nod. Paul finished with 10% of the vote in Iowa while some polls show him with 11% support in New Hampshire. As a great philosopher named Dr. Zachary Smith once said: "Viable candidate, indeed!"
Ron Paul finished ahead of Rudolph Giuliani in Iowa, and is far ahead of the real sideshow candidate, Fred Thompson, in New Hampshire (1-3%). Technically, he is more viable of a candidate than they are and will likely still be in the race after Giuliani packs it in and Thompson goes back to acting. Also, given the statistical margin for error in polls, Paul, Giuliani and Mike Huckabee are in a statistical tie for third place.
Why, then, would television execs think of excluding Paul in a major debate and still invite his weaker opponents? The theory of a Libertarian Party run may have been extinguished by Paul announcing he will not run if he does not get the Republican nomination. It seems independent thought and honest following of the constitution are not interests of the mainstream media (yes, Fox is included here) and the party leaders. They are all seemingly so out of touch with the American people, they think they can distract us with stories about runaway brides or Brittany Spears while each continue to the deliberate dumbing down of our nation.
Ron Paul, however, seemed to do well for himself out of all this: he has won an enormous amount of publicity thanks to the exclusion and may see his campaign strengthen. This should also prompt networks to not make the mistake of excluding candidates they do not like in a debate that could play a role in America's future.

The Iowa Illusion?

2008-01-04T18:14:00.001Z

Round one is over in the 2008 Presidential Primary, and already two of the more useless candidates are out of the running. Joe Biden and Chris Dodd have opted to dismantle their campaigns after poor showings in Iowa. Frankly, I didn't think they would last this long.
While the winners, Democrat Barack Obama and Republican Mike Huckabee needed victories in the caucus to prove their legitimacy, it is still an uphill battle for both: Obama may have succeeded in getting the Mid-West Oprah vote, but to win it all, he must overcome heavy poll leads for rival Hillary Clinton. While the media have made something of a deal about Clinton's third place finish in Iowa, most still aren't convinced that the primary is still merely a formality before the Hillary coronation as the nominee.
On the Republican side, Mike Huackabee campaigned hard, needed the win and got it. His victory can be attributed mainly to his credibility with the midwest Christian vote -- a very important one to Republicans who want to win a primary. The mainstream media, by the way, always makes sure to tag him as appealing to the more fundamentalist Christian types as something of a backhanded compliment. Mitt Romney's second place finish was no surprise either, but his win needs to come in New Hampshire. Fred Thompson should be happy with his third place finish.
While little has been made of Rudy Giuliani's sixth place finish, it should be a sign that voters not living in what liberals call "flyover territory" are not impressed with someone from New York City who puts little effort into campaigning for their votes. His showing may also serve as a "red flag" to coastal Republicans who may think that Giuliani will not be effective in winning the traditional red states of the midwest and south. Another sixth-place finish in New Hampshire may not be out of the realm of possibility.
It should also be noted that after George H.W. Bush won in 1988, no Iowa caucus winner had won the U.S. Presidency. It is not likely that Huckabee and Obama will break that trend.

Let the Games Begin!

2008-01-03T19:16:00.000Z

Is it that time already? It is the day of the Iowa caucus. While it seems that the presidential candidates for 2008 have been campaigning since late 2006, the voters will experience the annoyance of the primaries being moved up to start 11 months before the general election.
While Iowa's and New Hampshire's spots in the primary "batting order" are still at the top, their importance is being "challenged" by the PC crowd who thinks the coastal states should pick a candidate before anyone has a chance to campaign. The truth is that these small states have the potential to boost the chances of a second-tier candidate (read: "one not hand-picked by the media as a popular front-runner) to gain more publicity and support.
While the Democrats will see these two states merely as the beginning of a process to weed out Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, the fashionable fringe favorite Dennis Kucinich and the rest of the bottom-feeders, the Republicans look to have more at stake: the top Republicans (John McCain, Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney) have been very busy going after each other while trying to fight off the emergence of Mike Huckabee and two legitimate Dark Horses in Fred Thompson and Ron Paul.
Huckabee gained a lot of poll popularity with some populist stances on taxes and illegal immigration, but lately his momentum has fallen due to his not adequately fighting off attacks from the Big Three's machines. A finish in Iowa of fourth or worse could send his campaign to a quick death, since he may see a rough time in New Hampshire and may not see Michigan as a result. This would greatly open the door for Paul and/or Thompson.
While they are powerful now, each of the top three Republican media favorites have some major hurdles to overcome: McCain is still seen by many conservatives as a bit too far to the left for their liking; Voters may not be fooled by Romney's past tendencies toward Kennedy-like liberalism while Governor of Massachusetts; and Giuliani's personal baggage may cost him in the midwest and south. It would seem they may not have to worry too much about Iowa. Romney, Giuliani and McCain are placing more value on the New Hampshire primary while the latter two have put little effort into campainging in Iowa.
While polls show the front-runners ahead by a wide margin, Thompson remains confident and Ron Paul's surging numbers still most likely do not reflect his true support at the grass-roots level and on the internet. The potential for a second or third-place finish for Paul or Thompson is not far-fetched will make this fight a lot more interesting at least through the New York primary. Here is what needs to happen for each GOP candidate in the near future:
Mitt Romney needs to win New Hampshire. He wants Iowa and would like the positive press that comes with it, but he really needs to win where he is known best. Otherwise, he is in for a much shorter campaign than the media expected.
Rudy Giuliani just needs to hold on until he gets to New York -- a primary he will most likely win (barring a major flub personal problem). A third place finish in both Iowa and New Hampshire keeps him in the race. He is the one candidate that could wait out smaller states and then win a huge amount of delegates in larger states. A finish in Iowa or New Hampshire out of the top three would have little effect on him if he could pull out a win in Michigan.
John McCain needs to win in Iowa, contrary to popular belief. He will either be seen as the strongest candidate on the slate or "more of the same." by voters. A third-place finish in Iowa could cause more damage to his campaign than one might think. If he sweeps Iowa and New Hampshire thanks to name recognition, then he could shock Giuliani in New York and cruise to victory, barring a threat from Thompson or Paul.
Fred Thompson needs to win, place or show in Iowa to become any type of factor in the race. Should he finish fourth or fifth, he will not escape "obligatory side show status." Unfortunately, he is running a "celebrity campaign," much like Hillary Clinton did when she ran for Senate in New York. Republican voters are not so easilt fooled as a whole. He is going to have to come up with some real stances and ideas rather that wisecracks to become a factor.
Ron Paul can still break through the ranks should he finish fourth in both New Hampshire and Iowa, but it would be a longshot. If he finishes ahead of Huckabee and Thompson in Iowa and New Hampshire, he would send their campaigns to early deaths and quite possibly capitalize on their supporters. The best case scenario for Paul would be to place third in Iowa and come a very close second in New Hampshire. This could eventually propel him to the front of the pack. If he winds up losing, he may still run as a Libertarian or Constitutional Party nominee.
Mike Huckabee needs to win in Iowa. A close second may keep him in the race, but this is a candidate whose momentum seems to be going down as fast as it rose after the Youtube debate. If He does not prove his surge was not a fluke, then he will follow Fred Thompson to the sidelines.
Although the media has its favorites in the Republican primaries, this is a wide open race where six candidates have a legitimate shot to win before the Iowa results are handed in. For the Democrats, expect John Edwards to stick around for a long time. He won't settle for the VP slot any more.

Interview with Presidential Candidate Ron Paul

2007-12-31T16:59:00.000Z

Recently, as a substitute host for the Business/Economic Issues show "Money Matters" in the NYC-Metro area, I had the chance to duscuss money and economic issues with Presidential Candidate Ron Paul, who once ran for the state's top job in 1988 with Dr. Nancy Lord under the Libertaritan Party ticket. The MP3 can be accesed is here.

Ron Paul and the Stornfront Distraction

2007-12-31T16:30:00.000Z

It seems that there is some major hullabaloo going on with this reported $500 donation to Ron Paul's presidential campaign by Stormfront founder Don Black. Not surprisingly, Leftist bloggers and scared Republicans are making a huge issue over political pennies simply because Paul has decided not to give the money back. The subsequent "guilt by association" accusations are flying and those who are afraid of a Ron Paul presidency are hoping they stick.
While Paul will likely turn that money into something positive, detractors on both the Left and Far Right are currently working full farce (yes, that's not a typo) to discredit him with the dreaded "R" word that makes most politicians buckle under like a scared mousie. In keeping and using the money, Ron Paul should be congratulated for standing up to the Politically Correct Establishment's Thought Police and using that small pittance to help promote the true values of our nation and constitution in spite of what Ron Black stands for. It should also be noted strongly that Black himself made it a point to say that Paul is not a White Supremacist. Most "Cordani Project" readers and listeners are also expecting more media exaggeration as Paul's campaign gets stronger.
While Paul is taking some hits over a minuscule donation from an ineffectual fringe commentator, the media is STILL giving a free pass to its darling, Democratic Party candidate Barack Obama, who has known race-baiter Cornell West as one of his important campaign advisers. This was briefly mentioned -- in a positive tone -- by Newsweek Magazine, who did a puff piece on the senator, while leading in with a positive spin on one of his typical anti-white rants in front of a fringe activist group. To put it simply, some guy with opinions gives $500 to Ron Paul's campaign and he's being portrayed as a racist, while Barack Obama honors a known (and published) anti-white Socialist masking as a college professor and nobody blinks. This campaign could serve as prime fodder for those who look out for media double standards which lean to the Left.

The Oprahnator

2007-12-08T01:45:00.000Z

It looks like Barack Obama is going to get a big lift from Oprah Winfrey's endorsement. I have never been a fan of celebrity endorsements for anything more than cooking oil or chewing gum, but normally the Alec Baldwins and Sean Penns of the world have little impact outside a small fringe. What makes the Winfrey endorsement powerful and dangerous is that a recent survey shows a large number of young women and African Americans can be heavily influenced by the TV host and media mogul. Her influence is likely to transcend the fact that he is also supported by the likes of known race-baiters Al Sharpton and Cornel West -- with the latter being a trusted campaign adviser. Will Obama be rise the Oprah train to the top? While the media keeps giving him free passes on his association with the poverty/race barons, the Winfrey support will likely throw another sheet over the eyes of an easily-influenced section of the voters.
Not to be outdone, however, Hillary Clinton has her husband, Bill, out stumping for her. His influence with women and African-Americans rivals that of Winfrey, which could make this an interesting two-person primary if the Democratic Party voters decide to let celebrity be the prime motivation for their nomination -- a strategy that is not working for Republican Fred Thompson, whose more conservative electorate is less infatuated with Hollywood.

Bock

2007-12-07T01:29:00.000Z

As many of my listeners might know, The Cordani Project radio program is on hiatus until the spring. Of course, updating this blog might be nice as well. Some moonlighting had taken over my free time to blog over the past few months, but recent developments have made me bring it back. There will be changes in upcoming months, and a possible different name for this weblog. I will also put up some podcasts of interviews from 2007 as well as some commentary and future programs. We need to discuss important issues such as Venezuela, the ACLU's newest power grabs, the 2008 elections and the potential for a North American Union. This blog is now resurrected.

Today's Show

2007-08-08T19:15:00.000+01:00

Tonight, my guests will be Rich Noyes, Director of Research for the Media Research Project and James Hirsen of Newsmax. Noyes will discuss the media's criticism of Congressional Republicans for not rasing taxes to pay for bridge repairs, using the Minneapolis tragedy for their own agendas. James Hirsen and I will talk about why America's fascination with drunken teenage celebrities is helping bring down the nation.

We will also talk about Camp LaGuardia bing on the block again, FDA follies, Barry Bonds home run title.

Today's Guest

2007-08-01T19:33:00.000+01:00

Today, The Cordani Project welcomes nationally-known lawyer Michael Mazzariello, seen on "Closing Arguments With Nancy Grace," "Montel Williams" and other TV shows. We tackle some hot legal issues today including Michael Vick and the dog fighting allegations, gambling and game-fixing, illegal immigration and some local and national topics.