Some of the GOP presidential candidates visited with the Republican Jewish Coalition. The following are just a few of the quotes pulled from that forum:

First, former Mayor Giuliani:

“We would like to have peace,” Giuliani said. “We don’t want to have a peace in which Americans and Israelis are getting killed. And we certainly don’t want to create another terrorist-supporting state. We have too many of them already.”

From Mitt Romney:

Noting that Gaza became a launching ground for attacks after Israel withdrew in 2005, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said, “A thousand-plus rockets being launched from the Gaza strip shows the best intentions can result in something far less.”

Fred Thompson:

Thompson said, “The enemy that we face is a common one with Israel.”

Included in the article are also a few humorous quips delivered by the candidates in answer to questions posed at the meeeting.

The support for Israel expressed to the Coalition is one which I would hope will continue should any of these men be elected POTUS.

If you plan to watch the Republican debate of October 21st, it might be fun to submit a question via the address below and see if your query is selected.

FOX News wants to know what you would ask the Republican presidential candidates when they debate in Orlando, Fla., on Sunday, Oct. 21.

Please e-mail your question to debate@foxnews.com. Include your name, town, state and contact number for verification.

So we can get to know the candidates and their positions we’ll be publishing something from each of them from time.

Today is a recent campaign video from Fred Thompson. No talking in it, but it states his positions.

I’m having a sporadic internet connection and want to get this post up before it goes down again.

Please listen to Sandi Patty sing “We Shall Behold Him” and wait for the end when she hits a note that will give you chills.

The lady she hugs at the end is Dottie Rambo, the writer of this song with such beautiful promise. Not just hope, but promise.

So Fred goes after Rudy. Rudy replies. Mitt is having problems of his own and John just doesn’t appear to be desirable to the voter.

The balance of the field in my opinion is either running for a vice presidential nod or entered the race in good faith, only to see their hopes dashed long before a primary vote is cast.

It’s like trying to win in a title in sports when your hopes are pinned on another teams loss. We all know how that scenario plays out on most occasions.

The campaigns of Mike, Duncan, Sam and Ron have been playng catch up out of the gate and while I have heard some terrific ideas from three of them, their chance of gaining the nomination is practically zero.

If the front runners begin sniping at each other this early instead of taking on the real opposition, the Republicans in my opinion will have a difficult time in the general election. They do not need to beat up on their own, just answer questions on important issues honestly and take on the front runners on the left head on.

Conservatives can expect no help from the majority of the MSM. Positive stories about Rudy, Fred, Mitt or John will be difficult to come by. As a matter of fact if any one of them were carrying this baggage do you honestly believe they would be in the race even today.

* Number close to the Clinton machine who have been convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes: 44
* Number of convictions during his administration: 33
* Number of indictments/misdemeanor charges: 61
* Number of imprisonments: 14
* Number of presidential impeachments: 1
* Number of independent counsel investigations: 7
* Number of congressional witnesses pleading the 5th Amendment: 72
* Number of witnesses fleeing the country to avoid testifying: 17
* Number of foreign witnesses who have declined interviews by investigative bodies: 19

The Clinton machine now holds the record for the administration with:

* The most number of convictions and guilty pleas
* The most number of cabinet members to come under criminal investigation
* The most number of witnesses to flee the country or refuse to testify
* The most number of key witnesses to die suddenly
* The greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
* The greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad.[Source]

I don’t. But that is beside the point. With a large field such as both parties have, you might think by now that someone would have broken out with new, fresh ideas..a mini platform if you will.

It seems to me we have heard many soundbites, some one liners which were entertaining, and debates which have been for the most part boring and ridiculous in format. Substance is lacking everywhere and that is frightening to me not as a voter, but as an American.

Like him or not, when George W. Bush ran for office, you knew where he stood. Washington never allows all dreams and plans to materialize but this President has remained true to himself and his convictions throughout.

I do not see that on either side of the aisle in these candidates and while options may be narrowed to select the lesser of two evils, in a country as vast as ours, should it ever come to that? I think not.

Do we want another presidency where polls and the media drive policy?

Perhaps to some, the activities which took place in the Oval Office during the Clinton presidency were not a big deal. They are to me. That house belongs to us, not one President and I do not want to ever again have to feel it is being sold out for political or personal gain.

So, Fred, Rudy, Mitt and John, do the party a favor. Don’t make this campaign personal among yourselves. Make it about your visions for this country, make it about what qualifies you to be the most powerful leader in the world. Make it about the differences between yourself and the likely Democratic candidate. You need to excite those of us who want to throw our suppport behind you and your policies.

Many will say there is a long way to go and in reality there is, however, please gentlemen, leave the negativity towards one another at the door and let’s focus on the ultimate prize. It will be a long road back if we depend on the loss of another to catapult us to victory. Especially when the perspective opponent in the eyes of many has already earned the right to win.

*Welcome visitors from The Anchoress.

As you may or may not know Rush Limbaugh has up for auction at EBay the original letter to his boss, signed by Harry Reid and 40 other senators, including Senator Clinton.

We have a real time widget on the sidebar right under the Verse of the Day to show you how much the latest bid is. We will keep this up until after the auction is over so you can see what the final bid is.

All bidders have to be qualified, so I feel confident all this money is for real and will go to help the charity designated by Rush.

I would hope the Senators would give an equal amount to put their money where their mouths are, but I think that’s hoping for too much.

We have also added a widget that will take you directly to Michael Yon’s page, even though he is on our blogroll.

Please check these things out.

Michael Yon in his own words speaking on the situation in Basra, Iraq.

Michael was interviewed from Basra, Iraq as part of a segment entitled “The British Troop Drawdown: Can the Iraqis control Basra?” Also featured in this segment was Nic Robertson, CNN Senior International Correspondent, reporting from Baghdad. The October 13th broadcast of CNN’s “This Week at War” aired on Saturday at 7pm Eastern and was re-broadcast on Sunday, October 14th at 1pm Eastern.

If you have a moment the emails from Michael received by Glenn Reynolds are also worth a look.

This first deals in part with the above situation but the update I found very interesting:

Al Qaeda is in trouble in Iraq. The civil war that was growing in 2005, and then began erupting in 2006, is now on the decline. I was extremely worried during 2006 that al Qaeda would succeed by engulfing Iraq in civil war, but the Iraqis I speak with in various provinces are now smart about what AQI was up to. AQI tactics are backfiring — hugely backfiring. Strangely, al Qaeda, who nearly caused a complete meltdown, is becoming helpful in uniting Iraq. Strange world, Glenn!

How enlightening coming from one with eyes and boots on the ground.

*Please check out the new link to Michael Yon’s site on the sidebar and if you ever have a few extra minutes and have not read his previous work, it is well worth it.

Update: I neglected to mention Michaels latest dispatch “Achievements of the Human Heart” has been posted.

Back in July Sen. Clinton took Sen. Obama to task for saying he would negotiate with Iran.

The question that sparked the controversy at Monday’s debate seemed simple enough: Would the candidates for president be willing to meet, within their first year in office, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea?

Obama said yes, while Clinton said no, arguing that the president should only meet with world leaders who are hostile to the United States after lower-level diplomatic contacts are conducted. In an interview today with the Quad City Times, Clinton more directly criticized Obama’s answer.

“I thought that was irresponsible and frankly naive,” Clinton said, according to a story posted on the newspaper’s Web site.

Now she’s hit the ball somewhere but I’m not sure where it landed. She’s changed her mind about negotiations with Iran.

“True statesmanship requires that we engage with our adversaries, not for the sake of talking but because robust diplomacy is a prerequisite to achieving our aims.”

She says she would even consider offering incentives to Iran in return for a pledge to disarm. However, she sets out a series of stringent conditions that are virtually identical to current White House policy.

“If Iran is in fact willing to end its nuclear weapons programme, renounce sponsorship of terrorism, support Middle East peace, and play a constructive role in stabilising Iraq, the United States should be prepared to offer Iran a carefully calibrated package of incentives,” Ms Clinton wrote.

Er, no, not really.

“If Iran does not comply with its own commitments and the will of the international community, all options must remain on the table,” Ms Clinton said.

Well, that last quote certainly sounds decisive, doesn’t it? If Iran doesn’t comply we’ll make sure the international community concurs before we do anything to them.

How about if we pass 17 Security Council resolutions against Iran saying serious consequences will result if they don’t behave themselves? That should work.

I’m not advocating war with Iran by any means, but just what do you use for negotiations when you keep saying “pretty please”?

I guess we’ll be saying “pretty please” as the rockets are heading our way.

I’m getting whiplash trying to keep track of her daily positions on the same topic.

In a few months voters in Iowa will go to their caucus meetings and voters in New Hampshire will go to the primary voting booths.

In the meantime, you will see more of Hillary Clinton than Bill does.

Will someone do me the kind favor of asking Hillary about the following, which I found in The Hill?

Republicans plan to seize on an allegation from the 1992 presidential campaign to tarnish Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) on the red-hot issue of government surveillance.

Government surveillance will be at the forefront of the political debate this fall as congressional Democrats and President Bush square off over legislation allowing electronic spying on U.S. soil without a warrant.

Republicans are focusing on an allegation in a recent book by two Pulitzer Prize-winning reporters, which suggests Clinton listened to a secretly recorded conversation between political opponents.

In their book about Clinton’s rise to power, Her Way, Don Van Natta Jr., an investigative reporter at The New York Times, and Jeff Gerth, who spent 30 years as an investigative reporter at the paper, wrote: “Hillary’s defense activities ranged from the inspirational to the microscopic to the down and dirty. She received memos about the status of various press inquiries; she vetted senior campaign aides; and she listened to a secretly recorded audiotape of a phone conversation of Clinton critics plotting their next attack.

“The tape contained discussions of another woman who might surface with allegations about an affair with Bill,” Gerth and Van Natta wrote in reference to Clinton’s husband, former President Bill Clinton. “Bill’s supporters monitored frequencies used by cell phones, and the tape was made during one of those monitoring sessions.”

A GOP official said, “Hillary Clinton’s campaign hypocrisy continues to know no bounds. It is rather unbelievable that Clinton would listen in to conversations being conducted by political opponents, but refuse to allow our intelligence agencies to listen in to conversations being conducted by terrorists as they plot and plan to kill us. Team Clinton can expect to see and hear this over and over again over the course of the next year.”

Gerth told The Hill that he learned of the incident in 2006 when he interviewed a former campaign aide present at the tape playing. He has not revealed the aide’s identity. Clinton’s campaign has not disputed any facts reported in the final version of his book, which became public this spring, he said.

“It hasn’t been challenged,” said Gerth. “There hasn’t been one fact in the book that’s been challenged.”

I’d really like to hear the answer as to why it’s OK to monitor cell phone frequencies illegally for political gain and it’s not OK to monitor terrorists legally.

I’m sure she must have an excellent response already ready. She always does and she excels in pulling the wool over people’s eyes.

Try to surprise her with the question and let us know what she says.

Betsy is skeptical anyone will cover this story.