The Candidates
RCP has posted the video here. Watch it in its entirety. You’ll feel a lot better about Rudy after doing so. I sure did.
One of the first things I noticed about Rudy in this forum is that he almost seems liberated, as though he had previously found himself constrained by the recommendations of a myriad of political consultants and has finally thrown off the shackles. Because of that, I’m inclined to believe that Rudy is speaking from the heart in this speech on most if not all issues, and probably telling us what he really believes with little spin or nuance. On a strictly policy level, I find myself breathing a sigh of relief after hearing Rudy’s words, as Giuliani’s policy agenda remains a strong, center-right platform, despite any of Rudy’s personal beliefs on specific issues (cough, abortion, cough) with which I might disagree.
Just to sum up in a pithy manner Rudy’s stated positions on the issues, the Mayor made clear his strong support for fiscal and national security conservatism, calling for low taxes, limiting government spending, and remaining in offense against the threat of Islamist terrorism. Rudy believes that a strong defense and a growth economy are the two pillars of the Republican Party. He didn’t evoke entitlement reform during the call for reduced government as I had hoped he would, but that is neither here nor there. He did tout free trade and the destructive nature of excessive regulation. All in all, I came away convinced that Rudy is a very strong candidate on these issues for conservatives.
Rudy also clarified his positions on social issues in a manner that bridges the gap between his own language on these issues in recent months and the talking points coming from his campaign. On the Second Amendment, Rudy explained that he does believe in a right to bear arms as articulated by the Constitution, but also believes that, like the many other rights in the document, the simple fact that a right is present in the Constitution does not mean that government is rendered incapable of regulating it. Rudy expressed support for the decision to overturn the DC gun ban, which he felt constituted excessive regulation of gun ownership which did indeed violate the Second Amendment, though the Mayor feels that his policies in NYC were appropriate regulations that were consistent with the preservation of the constitutional right.
On same-sex unions, Rudy remained unchanged in his belief that marriage should remain inviolate, but also expressed his support for certain kinds of domestic partnerships, such as the sort that he enacted in NYC. He reiterated his opposition to New Hampshire’s civil unions bill, which he felt would result in de facto same-sex marriage.
On abortion, I actually felt that Rudy did much to rebuild a potential path to the operationally pro-life Coverdell strategy. The Mayor spent a lot of time — too much time — making the argument that abortion should be legal. This is something Rudy needs to work on. This issue has reached stalemate amongst the American people and, as convincing as Rudy is, he shouldn’t begin to think that somehow his arguments on the issue will all of the sudden convince abortion opponents to lay down their arms. But again, on a strictly policy basis, Rudy remains better on abortion for conservatives than any Democrat. Rudy affirmed his support for the current ban on partial-birth abortions. He admitted his thinking on this issue had evolved, and credited this evolution to continued study of the issue. He also admitted that he had once opposed the Hyde Amendment, but acknowledged that his mind has been changed on this issue as well after observing its practical effects over the years. As such, Rudy will be a president who would veto any efforts by the Democratic Congress to overturn Hyde or the PBA ban. Can pro-life conservatives truly make the claim that Rudy is no different from John Kerry on abortion?
On the judiciary and Roe, Rudy expressed his continued support for constructionist judges, finally defining what sort of judge in his view constitutes a constructionist. Rudy believes that judges should try and determine what the words of the Constitution meant to the people who were writing them, and that should be the standard by which the Constitution is interpreted. Again, please name any Democratic presidential contender who would have such a standard for judicial appointments. Finally, Rudy would not reveal his personal opinion on Roe. He said that he would have no litmus test on the issue (neither did Bush), and he pointed out, quite accurately, in this lawyer’s view, that no one really knows what any given judge is going to decide on any given case.
After hearing Rudy’s prospective policy agenda, apparently unfettered by whoever or whatever was holding him back in the past few months, I have to say that I feel a lot better about Rudy. Over the next few days, you’ll read many a blog post linking only to the few seconds that Rudy used to express his unwavering support for legal abortion. I disagree with Rudy’s view on this issue; I don’t think abortion is a “right” in any sense of the word, I think abortion ends a human life, and as someone who thinks human society should be organized around the primacy of the individual, I think the pro-individual position on abortion has to be one that recognizes the right of the individual growing in the womb over his or her own life. But when actually delving into the policy implications of Rudy’s speech, i.e., what Rudy would actually do with the powers of his constitutional office, Rudy still remains head-and-shoulders above any Democrat on judges and abortion, his weakest issue for conservatives, and eons ahead of the Democrats and lots of Republicans on economics and national security. No Democrat is going to appoint judges that attempt to interpret the Constitution based on the intent of the Framers. Many Democrats would gladly overturn the PBA ban or Hyde or both. Rudy’s policies will be operationally pro-life in that sense, even if the man is brazenly pro-choice.
As a final note, Rudy did in the speech make reference to only one Supreme Court Justice — Justice Kennedy — whose reasoning he praised on the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the PBA ban. If the implication is that Kennedy is the type of Justice Rudy intends to appoint, again, this is still eons better than any Democrat. Remember, it was the center-left Bill Clinton who gave us the Court’s two most liberal Justices. Just imagine what sorts of Justices an actual liberal Democrat would appoint. This is more of a point pertaining to the general election; clearly, if McCain would fight for a Luttig and Rudy would appoint a Kennedy clone, conservatives will have a decision to make in the primaries. But if Rudy wins the nod, it would be insane for pro-lifers to stay home or vote third-party if the choice is between another Justice Kennedy or a Justice to the left of Ginsberg.
May 12th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
Does Rudy think I forgot that in April 2007 he said tax payers should pay for abortion? He didn’t address why he apparently changed his mind again within the last month on the Hyde ammendment.
Does Rudy think I don’t know he is lying about his change of mind on PBA. Don’t believe me read this from Media Matters on the supposed change in the law that made Giuliani change his mind.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200704250010
Go ahead and watch this clip of Rudy also.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giZx5i3Ntv0
May 12th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
He’s certainly *hoping* you forgot.
May 12th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Giuliani’s been flogging his national security credentials for years, but he has yet to make his “national security speech.” What are Giuliani’s views on the Bush Doctrine, and what is his stance on Iran? Can any Giuliani supporters help me out on this one?
May 12th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Nice try, Dskinner. But you and I both know that Rudy did not endorse federal funding of abortions in April. He only expressed his view that he supports the rights of states and localities to do so, as he did while Mayor of NYC.
May 12th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
Dskinner, please don’t cite Media Matters as evidence for anything having to do with Republicans. Media Matters serves as yet another propaganda arm of the Democratic Party, and is funded by left-wing nut job George Soros. MM has even less credibility than the MSM, which at least pretends to be objective.
May 12th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
Look at this drop in Giuliani’s poll numbers in Iowa. If this keeps up, he’d better hope his strategy of ignoring the traditional primary states works, because he will not be that likely to win there.
http://www.presidentpolls2008.com/primary-election-poll-results/iowa-democratic-republican-polls.html
4/27-30/07 3/19-22/07 1/29-2/1/07 12/19-23/06 4/25-5/2/06
% % % % %
John McCain 26 29 22 26 23
Rudy Giuliani 19 29 27 28 16
Mitt Romney 14 10 11 6 1
From what I’m reading out there in the blogosphere, many people, especially in middle America, are starting to realize what a Giuliani candidacy would mean. Patrick Buchanan’s article outlines the reasoning on this pretty well:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=rudys_party_–_or_reagans&ns=PatrickJBuchanan&dt=05/11/2007&page=1
“If Rudy were to be nominated as a pro-choice Republican, millions would stay home or vote third party. For it was the life issue that brought them into the party, or kept them there when they disagreed with the party on almost everything else.
Nor is Rudy’s embrace of the pro-choice position going to stop the questions — like the ones he kicked all over the stage at the Reagan Library.
Asked if he would like to see Roe v. Wade overturned, Rudy allowed as how it would be “OK” with him if it was and OK with him if it wasn’t. Though he “hated” abortion, he had funded it in New York. If others don’t want to fund it, that’s OK with Rudy, too.
Rudy, in short, is treating the issue like a ban on smoking in bars.
A Rudy nomination would bring the culture war right down onto the floor of the Republican convention.”
…
“If Rudy is honestly pro-choice, how can he name justices certain to overturn Roe v. Wade, thereby restricting choice to millions of women? And if he intends to nominate justices like Roberts and Scalia, why would any pro-choicers vote for him?
Rudy’s pro-choice, pro-Scalia stance seems intellectually incoherent and politically inexplicable. He loses part of the pro-life vote and all the pro-choice vote? This is smart politics?
Moreover, simply because Rudy declares himself pro-choice does not mean the issue goes away. Rudy’s opponents will bring it up again and again in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. The press will go straight to the contradiction between supporting “a woman’s right to choose” and supporting justices who would abolish a woman’s right to choose…..Somewhere, Mitt Romney is smiling.”
May 12th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
JF: Rudy’s speeches on national security are well-documented and have been well- linked to. We’ll give you some more references before long… and you’ll instantly forget them.
The Romneybots have a peculiar (and ironic) fascination with “proof.” You could state the sky is blue on this blog, and they’d wail you must prove it. You could take a photo and link to it, and they’d ask how they could know it was not altered by Photoshop.
May 12th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
My advice to Rudy at this point would be the following:
1) On nat-sec issues, start talking about the things that you would DO to destroy Islamist terrorism.
2) On fiscal issues, promote entitlement reform in a tough way, but in a smarter way than Bush did.
3) Continue to build the Coverdell bridge to pro-lifers with the judges/PBA/Hyde trio. Perhaps mention some judges on the federal bench that you might seek to appoint if there is a SCOTUS vacancy. You’ve gotten the pro-choice stuff off your chest, now clam up about it. When asked, state that you’re personally pro-choice and move on to judges.
With these tweaks, the Rudy I initially envisioned will be fully operational. The only question is whether Rudy has already poisoned the well with the so-cons and will thus have to depend entirely on the Feb. 5th states to start winning primaries. I hope that’s not the case. I suppose it’s possible that a candidate could lose IA, NH, and SC and still win the nod, but it sure isn’t very likely.
May 12th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
David B (#6), Giuliani said in the debate that he’d attack Iran as a last resort to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons. First, that’s not consistent with his theme of keeping the US on the attack. Second, it’s virtually the same response that McCain gave. How does he distinguish himself, then? If he parrots McCain, then why choose the imitation when you can get the real thing, from a guy who fought in our last big counterinsurgency war? Giuliani’s status-quo approach to North Korea is also dishearteningly weak and inconsistent with his claimed stance of aggression towards enemies of the US. The implication is that he does not believe in the Bush Doctrine, but he hasn’t spoken directly on the matter.
In essence, as long as Giuliani claims to be the national security candidate (and this claim is repeated by supporters like you), I will express skepticism. His views do not support such a claim, and his rather tenuous performance on September 11 doesn’t provide any insight into how he would prosecute a global war on terror. However, being open minded, I’m willing to give you as many chances as it takes for you to provide evidence that he the same amount of backbone as Bush 43.
Also, why are you opposed to a fact-based decision process?
May 12th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
DaveG (#7), well said. It’s not enough to said what he has done in NYC, if he comes up with a plan for the GWOT (other than “we’ll stay on the offensive”), he’ll instantly boost his national security credentials. Doesn’t he have any national security advisors on his campaign?
May 12th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
Dskinner Said on May 12th, 2007 at 12:19 pm:
Like I said in another post, Dskinner, in response to you saying that you say you listened (two times!) to Rudy’s Houston speech and are still waiting for answers on Hyde and PBA — you’re full of it. He explicitly answered those questions and many more.
And, dude, Media Matters…? Really, now.
May 12th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
“Rudy affirmed his support for the current ban on partial-birth abortions. He admitted his thinking on this issue had evolved, and credited this evolution to continued study of the issue. He also admitted that he had once opposed the Hyde Amendment, but acknowledged that his mind has been changed on this issue as well after observing its practical effects over the years. As such, Rudy will be a president who would veto any efforts by the Democratic Congress to overturn Hyde or the PBA ban.”
This is outrageous! This is clearly simply a politically expedient conversion! The fact that he didn’t change his mind until after he started running for President makes this sound awful fishy! We can’t trust this guy to do what he says! He’s a flip-flopper! Who’s to say he won’t go back to being fully pro-choice when he gets into office? He’s just pandering to the base! We have YouTube of him saying otherwise that we will post on the front page and label as “shocking” or “damning” or some such hysteria-causing term!
[/sarcasm]
Seriously, how many ways can you say “double standard”?
Sheesh.
May 12th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Dave,
Great post. I was at the Houston speech (stuck in overflow watching on closed circuit, though) and your take is the exact impression I got. The last month or so, I had really been losing hope in Rudy, and, not being sure FDT was the answer, was quite despondent.
After this speech, I knew he was back and ready to rumble. If he can stay on message, engaged, and run this thematic thread through the rest of his campaign, starting with the debate next week, everyone except the most die-hard will at least give him a second look, and probably be quite impressed. I finally felt like Rudy was “connecting” again, and I definitely agree that he seemed to relish the opportunity to finally throw caution to the wind and be himself.
I read Ben D’s take on Redstate and felt like we had been at two different speeches, but he was right there, too. Still, I think my favorable impression was on target and is not being tainted by any pro-Rudy bias.
Get past the MSM headlines, snippets from the NYT, and bloggers reflections based on the soundbites - and actually listen to the speech - and you can’t help but be impressed with his message.
May 12th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
“Continued study of the issue” = “I need something to temper my wildly extremist position on the abortion question.”
“Observing its practical effects” = “Observing that a solidly pro-choice politician could never win the GOP primaries.”
Seriously, I thought we were going to see a little straight talk from Rudy on abortion now, not more of this double speak crap.
“I hate abortions but donated 6 times to Planned Parenthood, far and away the country’s leading provider of abortions” still rings as hollow as it did last week, Rudy. Why don’t you just come out and tell us that you like abortion and stop lying to us. You liked it when you were NARAL’s “Champion of Choice” - what changed between then and now?
Just a little “continued study of the issue,” eh?
May 12th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
And of course if a liberal said the sky was blue, that would be taken as proof that it isn’t.
May 12th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
The difference between Rudy and Romney is that Romney has to explain away how he was once politically pro-choice and personally pro-life and is now pro-life in both instances.
Rudy has to explain away how he used to be personally and politically pro-choice and how he is now personally pro-life and politically pro-choice.
Rudy’s got the harder row to hoe here, and the “Houston speech” that was supposed to be the beginning of his straight talk on the issue certainly failed to impress at every level.
May 12th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
Tano, indeed. Liberals have done much over the decades to damage their credibility, and they are now paying the price. Trust, but verify, remember?
May 12th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
JF, He doesn’t need to boost his national security credentials yet, because people paying attention already love him for his nat-sec creds. Why do you think a notable minority of so-cons are willing to overlook Rudy’s pro-choice stance to support him? Serious question. There is a thing such as peaking too soon, and I believe a candidate should withhold most of his real red meat until the last few months before the primaries.
Several polls have demonstrated GOP voters like Rudy over McCain on national security. Why? Half of what’s important for a Commander in Chief is moral clarity, the belief on our enemies part the CIC is willing to pull the trigger, and, in fact, the willingness to pull the trigger, despite how Congress and/or the UN feels about it. McCain has proven himself to be a compromiser. Thankfully, not on national security, but his *character* is that of a compromiser. It undercuts his believability on any topic. He is always eager to please the mainstream, and that certainly would include the UN and Congress.
Rudy, by contrast, demonstrated as Mayor that he is willing to go to war against the mainstream. That he is willing to tell the voters how it is, and educate them, when they are against him. That he will use every legal loophole he can find to use his executive powers, and wage legal wars to do so. His character is *fundamentally* different from McCain’s when it comes to *fighting*.
Position statements only mean so much. The knowledge a President will act, and the fear he will act, is everything.
Rudy’s returning of the Saudi $10M check to the 9/11 families demonstrated he’s willing to be farther to the right than Bush. More fundamentally was his ejecting Arafat from the UN 50th celebration, showing he was intransigent on terrorism, BEFORE 9/11.
Those actions, his scorched-earth warrior history as Mayor, the moral clarity with which he speaks of Islamofacism, and his willingness and ability to confront the electorate and change their minds, is what sets him apart from McCain, whose actions have proven him to the opposite type of man.
Romney… hahaha. No matter what position statements he takes, what foreign enemy is going to be afraid of a Clintonesque political opportunist/pleaser with a slick style and blow-dried hair?
Thompson: You can make a strong case he’ll be taken seriously on foreign policy. But Rudy has the unique creds I mentioned. When Thompson appeals to a left-leaning electorate and Democratic Congress that we must hold firm in Iraq, he’ll be viewed as just another southern religious conservative like the one who got us into this mess. When Rudy, in his inimitable way, says “Whether or not you think getting into this war was the right thing to do, consider what will happen if we leave…[insert litany]” and he will be respected by and listeded to enough people in the middle to hopefully have a mandate to see it through.
Bottom line: Being a good Commander in Chief is primarily about having moral clarity, being a fighter, and being feared.
I know you Romneybots have difficulty assessing character, other than when it comes to your relationship with your spouse. I suggest you start to read world history and see what great leaders have been made of.
May 12th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
Meanwhile the Great Second Tier, which people really think should be the first Tier is at work…..
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070512/ap_en_ce/people_brownback_favre
May 12th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Mjs,
Good to see we are on the same page. The Houston speech was the first time in a long time that Rudy seemed like he really wanted to win this thing. That’s good. He’ll need the fire in the belly to get there.
Ben Domenech’s post at RedState on the topic confused me as well. Ben pointed out, either in the post or the comments, that Rudy blew a chance at making a federalist argument for overturning Roe. Maybe. But if Rudy is going to appoint judges who will interpret the Constitution and the laws based on the intent of those who wrote them, there’s a good chance Roe will be overturned or at least limited by Rudy’s own hand. As such, I thought Ben really missed the point in his analysis, and I think much of that is due to Rudy’s stumbling on abortion over the last few months, and how it has probably left a bad taste in all of our mouths. I think Rudy is on track to rebuild his path to the nod, but it’s not going to be the smooth sailing it once was, when Rudy was apporaching a near-majority of GOP primary voters.
May 12th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Well put, David B. Though I am not quite as skeptical of Romney as you are. Still, on national security, I have zero doubts Rudy will go to the mat, and is the best choice of the Big 4 on that issue.
May 12th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
David B (#17),
What circular logic. So those who prefer Giuliani already bought into his September 11 story. That’s great. What about the 70% of us who haven’t bought into his story? I’m sure you’ve noticed that Giuliani’s polling numbers are coming down to earth. Why doesn’t he set the pace instead of waiting for it to be set by him? He should take advantage of his front-runner status to define himself as the national security candidate (as he has nominally tried to do), but his superficial treatment of the subject has allowed his campaign to be distracted by the abortion debate. That shows that the electorate (and perhaps more importantly, the media) is not convinced that he’s dramatically superior to the other candidates when it comes to national security.
As for McCain, there is no candidate more closely aligned with the surge and the fight-it-out stance than McCain. For those of us who put national security first, his is the strongest stance of any of the candidates. With all due respect, returning Saudi money, throwing Arafat out of a celebration (or more accurately, barring him from entering), and taking on Democrats is hardly equivalent to ordering our armed forces to fight and die to protect America.
Your invective concerning Romney supporters has confused you. I can’t speak for the other Romney supporters here, but I believe we are a very reasonable group, and can be convinced by substantiative arguments that other candidates are superior. But the supporters of the other candidates have never tried this, only resorting to name-calling, which doesn’t have any effect on our reasoned positions. I asked Giuliani supporters whether he supports the Bush Doctrine and what he plans to do with Iran (and North Korea, for the matter) precisely because Romney hasn’t articulated strong views on this. That was your chance to convince me that Giuliani has aggressive plans, but you blew it, as usual. The GWOT is my number one issue, so until Giuliani can convince me on that, he can’t move ahead of the other candidates.
Regarding FDT, he’s the weakest of the group in terms of national security credentials, so he needs to come out the most forcefully in terms of rhetoric. He hasn’t done so, and he hasn’t even declared yet, so why are we discussing him?
Your exhortation to read world history to learn about moral clarity is ironic and one more case where you have managed to steal defeat from the jaws of victory. Giuliani is not a moral man, but this was your chance to argue that many of the greatest wartime leaders have not been moral, either. Again, you failed. If you would just sharpen up your logic, you would find me agreeing with you more. You’re lucky that KT and That LiberalGuy are here to make you look good.
May 12th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
“Several polls have demonstrated GOP voters like Rudy over McCain on national security. Why? Half of what’s important for a Commander in Chief is moral clarity, the belief on our enemies part the CIC is willing to pull the trigger, and, in fact, the willingness to pull the trigger, despite how Congress and/or the UN feels about it. McCain has proven himself to be a compromiser”
David B:
Actually, if there’s anything I’m worried about, it’s McCain with his finger on any button, at this point.
JF:
what’re you talking about? Thompson has the best national security credentials of every candidate. I just made out a new qualifications sheet:
- Served on the US-China Economic Review Commission
- AEG Scholar specializing in Diplomatic Relations and Foreign Intelligence
- Special Counsel to both the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations under President Reagan
- Chairman of the International Security Advisory Board currently; a high-level panel charged with evaluating long-term threats to U. S. security
- Member of the powerful Senate Committee on Finance, which has jurisdiction over, among other things, international trade.
- Member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
- Member of the National Security Working Group, which observes and monitors executive branch negotiations with foreign governments.
- Member of the Council on Foreign Relations, an organization that promotes improved understanding of international affairs through public and private discussion.
- Member of the American Enterprise Institute for Policy Research, studies national security and intelligence, with a focus on China, North Korea, and Russia.
- Chairman of the Government Affairs Committee 1997-2001
- Ranking Republican Minority Member of the Government Affairs Committee 2001-2003
- Chairman of the Youth Violence Committee 1995-1997
- Chairman of the Senate Government Oversight Committee
- Foreign Relations Committee, 1995-96
- Member, Judiciary Committee, 1995-98
- Member, Constitution, Federalism and Property Rights, 1997-98
- Member, Technology, Terrorism and Gov’t. Information, 1995-98
- Member, Finance Committee, 1999-2002
- Finance subcommittees
Member, International Trade, 1999-2002
Member, Taxation and Oversight, 1999-2002
Member, Social Security and Family Policy, 1999-2002
Member, Health Care, 1999-2002
May 12th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Once again a Rudy supporter referring to non-Rudy supporters as uninformed. “I suggest you start to read world history and see what great leaders have been made of.”-David B
Thanks David, from an uninformed dolt too stupid to jump on the Rudy bandwagon.
May 12th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Well, you could make the arguement for McCain too.
May 12th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
JF: You simply don’t get it. I’m sure objective readers understand the point I was getting across. You simply do not recognize moral clarity and intransigence when it’s glarigly obvious.
Rudy has openly supported the Bush doctrine for the last 5 years, while campaigning for GOP candidates in 02, 04, and 06.
Also, to correct your correction: Arafat was already in the building and was removed due to Rudy.
May 12th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Enough of the “Media Matters, Give me a break” stuff. I clearly only used that link because I couldn’t find another link that had the language of both bills together. There opinion about Rudy is irrelevant to my point that the language of the bill moved in a pro-life direction, not a pro-choice direction yet that caused Rudy to change his mind.
Would it make you feel better if I found a bette link for the text of the bills?
May 12th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
Tommy, I don’t see what many of those things have to do with national security, but thanks anyway because I wouldn’t have guessed that Thompson had such an extensive resume. Thompson’s still a possibility for me.
May 12th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Tommy (#21), you directed me some time ago to the documents that were generated out of those commissions on which FDT served. Believe it or not, I actually read them. I have to ask, did you?
May 12th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
David B Says:
“JF: You simply don’t get it.”
Ah yes. More helpful condescension from the Giuliani supporters.
May 12th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
The “read some world history” quote was a dig at Mormons and the fact that 90%+ of Romney bloggers are not objectively thinking Republicans who arrived at supporting their candidate weighing the pros and cons of each, and expressing occasional disagreement with their candidate of choice, but but are simply dutifully supporting a fellow Mormon.
What’s going to happen to Romney’s campaign when the electorate realizes the vast majority of his supporters are Mormons?
It’ll be like Iowans revolting against Dean’s orange-capped lefty college students bused in to tell Iowans how to think.
Except it’ll be much more subtle this time. And they’ll be brown shirts rather than orange caps. Or white shirts, black pants, on bikes. No, it will really be more subtle, but at some point voters will figure out it’s a Mormon army busing them to the polls etc. I sure hope this realization happens in the primary, not the general, or the GOP is cooked.
Call me a bigot all you like, but this huge white elephant is poised to have a major impact on the election. Not talking about it is not recognizing reality.
May 12th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
For those who believe that Rudy didn’t say he supports tax payer funding of abortion. (DaveG, David B and mjs in particular)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZe1j4csMq8&mode=related&search=
Not only does he stand by his old statement, but he says again that he supports it.
He doesn’t say I’m against it but the states can decide he says, “Even if you do it on a state by state basis you have to do it.” He then after the interviewer wipes the look of suprise off her face she asks him to clarify and he says “Yes.”
May 12th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
David B (#24), I don’t get it because there is nothing to get. I’m not ashamed to admit that I don’t see what’s not there, and your love of smoke and mirrors does nothing to persuade me otherwise.
May 12th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
David B,
That comment about Mormons is the most asinine thing I have ever heard. Do I really need to prove to you this isn’t the case? I thought we did that already. I don’t think this makes you a bigot, I just think it makes you an uninformed jackass.
May 12th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
David B (#29), I’m not a Mormon, but I support Romney. Just how many Mormons do you think there are in the US? I think you’ve been reading too much “Protocols of the Elders of Salt Lake City,” my friend.
Brown shirts? So now Romney supporters are Nazis? Maybe you’re not a bigot, perhaps you’re just insane.
May 12th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Dskinner: Why are you putting words in my mouth? I KNOW Rudy supports tax payer funded abortions at the state level, and where allowed under the Hyde Amendment. I do not. He does, and I never said he didnt.
May 12th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
JF: Sorry, thought you were one of the Rombots.
May 12th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
A lot of those are new that I added. Yes, I’ve read through them a lot of times.
You can’t compare experience on the two. If you don’t agree with what he did, that’s fine. But don’t call him the least experienced.
May 12th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
Sorry David B, in my rush to defend my statements I lumped you in with DaveG and mjs. For that I apologize. I should have read all the posts more carefully.
May 12th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
What has Romney done to quell my fears of National Security? What accomplishments are in his resume that so many are so proud of?
The Olympics or the two years he spent in France?
May 12th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
and JF, notice, he didn’t just ’serve’ on those committees. He was in charge of those committees. THere’s a difference.
May 12th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Tommy, yes, his work on the Olympics involved organizing the first large-scale security program in the US post September 11. But more than the Olympics is the team that Romney is assembling, including people with some of the best operational experience to be had. I remind you of Cofer Black. As far as FDT’s leadership, as far as relevant experience, he was only Chairman of the International Security Advisory Board. He was in a leadership position of the Government Affairs and Government Oversight committees, but those are only tangentially related to national security at best. For everything else, he was simply a member of the committee. He wasn’t in charge of all of those committees by a long shot.
May 12th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
Tommy,
National Security is obviously Romney’s biggest weakness from an experience standpoint. I’m not sure what experience Reagan had with that before he was elected, but I don’t see how he had very much. Obviously all that means is Romney could end up being a National Security genius, not that he will be one.
I am hoping for a Romney/Thompson ticket. Obviously you are hoping for a Thompson/? ticket. Thompson has definitely shot up to being right behind Romney, but part of that “shooting up” is relative and may be more Giuliani dropping like a stone with Thompson creeping up. Either way I could never vote for Giuliani in a primary so essentially he has been removed from my list. I totally respect people who do vote for him, we just have different priorities on the issues.
May 12th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Tommy, by the way, let me clarify: I am not claiming that Romney is the national security candidate, but I believe he’s at least as up to the task as the others. However, that leaves room for the others to prove that they are superior to Romney, and if they can convincingly show that, I will probably start leaning towards those other candidates instead. As I said to David B, none of the other candidates have proven that yet, and it’s especially puzzling in Giuliani’s case since he’s made national security the centerpiece of his campaign.
May 12th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
JF,
It’s the knowledge that counts for me. I was in Atlanta during the 1996 Olympics, so I know how tight security can be. There’s a big difference between planning security for an event, and a nation, however. Thompson was always a leader in the Senate on the issue. That’s common knowledge. He helped create the Homeland Security Branch of the government, and that’s well known. He pushed through legislation that protects our nuclear plants, especially the one that is about 45 minutes from my house. Putting together a team is great. Look at Bush’s team he put together in 2000. That didn’t work out to well. Government affairs has a lot to do with international interests. Thompson was the one who investigate Chinese influence on our government’s decision making process. Cofer Black, he’s got some positives, and some negatives.
Dskinner, I think Romney might have some pretty good ideas. He has to show that he has what it takes to really implement them.
May 12th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
You may want to “unlump” me, too, Dskinner. I never said I “believe that Rudy didn’t say he supports tax payer funding of abortion.” Frankly, I don’t know where you get that from.
What I did say, however, was that in this speech he not only clearly explained his position (yes, finally), but also explained, per your request, why he holds that position and how it has evolved. Believe it or not, that is your choice. But, you can’t say he doesn’t address in his speech exactly the questions you had earlier asked.
I am not a Rudy sycophant. I am disappointed in how he has handled the life issue and feel like he blew a big opportunity. Still, as far as mitigation goes, I think he did about as well as he could have done with this speech. My focus has been on this speech, and how it is actually a “different” message, both in style and substance. I agree with him on most issues; I find him extremely competent on those issues I do agree with him on; I think he is pretty much the only R that can win in the general election. Look, if I felt he were a Lincoln Chaffee clone, I wouldn’t support him no matter what. But, I’m able to weigh the pros and cons, and I find his pluses greatly outweigh his minuses. And, I am willing to try to objectively evaluate his positions, and any changes in strategy or tactics. In other words, I watched the speech and have discussed it in relation to his past statements, and not ignored those past statements. I don’t think you’re trying to do the same.
As for Romney, I don’t think he is a “flip-flopper,” and I agree with his articulated positions (on paper anyway) a bit more than I do with Giuliani. But, I personally connect with Giuliani more and I feel like Giuliani establishes that connection with many conservatives and independents, somehow being able to bridge the two, and that he has the best shot, if not the only shot, of the GOP winning in ‘08.
I’m open to being convinced otherwise, though I’m not particularly looking to be. It just seems that you, and many others, are not. Further, you get really, really personal in acting as de facto surrogates for you candidates of choice, and — more importantly — advocate for your guys like a lawyer almost, painting him in the absolute best possible light, not admitting it’s politics, and that no one is perfect. I think we should be honest about whomever we are backing, warts and all.
May 12th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
JF, here is a little clarification. This is current and is part of the State Department:
Senator Fred Thompson (Chairman)
Senator Fred Thompson is currently the chairman of the International Security Advisory Board at the United States Department of State. Senator Thompson also is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, a member of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission and a visiting fellow with the American Enterprise Institute.
http://www.state.gov/t/isn/isab/68268.htm
May 12th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
Also, don’t forget that FDT is speaking at the CNP tonight. It is definitely very important, and after tonight, you might be able to get a clearer picture of which direction his candidacy will head in. Won’t be televised though, from what I gather.
May 12th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
MJS,
I agree totally with your last sentance. If you read my posts you would clearly see that I am open to other candidates and that I have readily acknowledged Romney’s faults. See #41. If you mean to say I shouldn’t minimize or try to explain Romney’s faults then I disagree with you. That is what a debate is all about. We bring up facts and discuss their meanings and implications.
As far as lumping you in, I guess I took your statement about Hyde to mean you thought he was against tax payer funded abortions. My apologies. Let me apologize to DaveG in advance of his post. That is a pretty big deal to me not only because it forces me to subsidize something that I consider morally repugnant, but also because he thinks the government’s role is to subsidize our rights. I can’t wait for the government to pay for my own private newspaper and gun collection. I really do love the 1st and 2nd ammendments.
I think we should just agree to disagree about Rudy. Again, as far as Romney goes I think he is the most qualified candidate to run for President, ever. That doesn’t mean he is perfect or that he is the most qualified in every area, but I believe he is the best overall and that is why I support him.
May 12th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
JF, here is the definition of the Government Affairs Committee that Thompson chaired for 5 years, and served as the ranking Republican leader on for 2 more:
The United States Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs has jurisdiction over matters related to the Department of Homeland Security and other homeland security concerns, as well as the functioning of the government itself, including the National Archives, budget and accounting measures other than appropriations, the Census, the federal civil service, the affairs of the District of Columbia, and the United States Postal Service. The committee’s name was formerly the United States Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, prior to homeland security being added to its responsibilities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Senate_Committee_on_Government_Affairs
May 12th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
I think all of you need to come to grips with the fact that the Republican attitudes, and polices on national security issues has been thoroughly discredited.
Y’all seem to have this bizarre impression that the Republicans have a natural advantage on this issue. Perhaps that had some validity 6 years ago, or even 2 years ago. But it is the case no longer.
None of your potential nominees has done anything to distinguish his position from the Bush approach. And as a result, none of your potential nominees will be seen as having any vision, whatsoever, of how to actually improve our security.
If y’all think that Rudy’s performance as a hand-holder in the ruins of the WTC, followed by 6 years of mindless agreement with Bush policies, equates to someone with a clear vision of how to be a national security leader, then y’all are in for a very frustrating run.
When a particular policy trajectory has been proven to be flawed, the people look for alternatives. And before you can even get a hearing for your alternative, you must acknowledge what the voters know about the failures of the previous (current) apporach. I dont see any of your candidates (except Hagel and Paul) even beginning this process.
May 12th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
Tano, that’s because the US electorate has reached consensus that we would rather attack the terrorists than have the terrorists attack us. It’s actually the Democratic vision (Clinton’s non-response strategy) that’s been discredited. The Bush Doctrine has proved its worth so far, so I don’t see any reason to abandon it.
May 12th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Tano;
This might be true when dealing with the war abroad. But on national security? You’re wrong on that count, unless you buy into the Rosie 9/11 theories.
May 12th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
Tommy (#48), I’m not saying he has no experience, I’m saying that he doesn’t have the best credentials in this regard. As you point out, the Government Affairs Committee covers everything from the postal service to the National Archives, so its jurisdiction over Homeland Security isn’t its sole focus. I actually think it’s an advantage for FDT to downplay his leadership role on this committee, given the reputation for incompetence that Homeland Security suffers these days. Still, oversight over a department is derivative; had he run Homeland Security, that would be substantial experience. But he didn’t. Again, I think it comes down to executive vs. legislative experience.
That said, nothing he’s done would cause me to dismiss him outright. I just think that if you look to security, the top three have good credentials in that regard, especially McCain. If you look to fiscal austerity, Romney and Giuliani have those bases covered. FDT’s opening is in social conservatism, and he may well triumph in that field. But for me, personally (and isn’t this site all about personal opinions?), social conservatism is the last of my three priorities. I know that several neoconservatives like FDT, but I’m still skeptical at the moment. I think he can address that will some strong rhetoric, but I haven’t seen it yet. As I’ve said before, he needs to declare and start laying out his platform before he can really make any movement, but right now, he’s in limbo.
May 12th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
In terms of actual accomplishments achieved in the real world, on a daily basis, improving the lives of millions of people in their everyday existences, Giuliani’s done more than McCain, Romney, Huckabee, Brownback, Tancredo combined. He’s also done more than Hillary, Obama, and Edwards combined. In terms of betterment of quality of life at the blood and guts level, Giulaini completely blows everyone else off the map. Moved 600,000 people off welfare? Turned NYC from an economic basket case into a temple of economic development and tourism? Cut the murder rate by two thirds? Come on. And this is not even taking into account his job as one of the most successful prosecutors in the history of humanity!
May 12th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
David B’s comments are becoming increasingly bizarre. 90+% of Romney’s supporters are Mormons? I wasn’t aware that New Hampshire Republicans were 30% Mormon. Or Michigan Republicans 20% Mormon. In fact, as far as I can gather, there’s virtually zero Mormons in either of those states. As it happens, I don’t think the nation has 10% Mormons either. And then there’s his strange tendency to call people “Romneybots”, then rescind that appellation if they mention they aren’t Mormons. In fact, as far as I can gather, the only qualification one needs to be a “Romneybot”, is to be a Mormon. And you can’t, by definition apparently, be one otherwise.
May 12th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
What will probably be the one issue that makes me not support Rudy is his firm support of the PATRIOT act.
May 12th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
One of the most successful prosecutors in the history of humanity?
And people have accused me of being hyperbolic?
May 12th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
Matt: I’m referring to Romney’s volunteers, not those willing to cast a vote for him. You’re right, a “Romneybot” is a Mormon who supports Romney only because he is co-cultist. You are not a Romneybot, as I have said before.
May 12th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
I just heard that John McCain called these folks the Von Spreckens in Iowa, where supposedly Giuliani backed out of the fundraiser at their because they aren’t wealthy, to ‘apologize on behalf of all politicans.’ I can’t fins any links to confirm that, though.
May 12th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
Matt: Rudy did effectively end the mafia, which was thought impossible. His win rate as a prosecutor was phenomenal. Can you think of any prosecutor who may have a greater track record?
May 12th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
Peter, good one. I agree entirely with you, Giuliani’s not G-d. The hyperbole they often present is rightly mocked, as you have done.
May 12th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
Err, “they” being Giuliani supporters.
May 12th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
David B, don’t make an fool of yourself here. If you have stupid opinions you should keep them to yourself or your opinion that was previously respected will be ignored.
Can you give me the name of the bloggers here (or on other sites) who are supporting Romney because he is a Mormon? I assume those same people must also support Harry Reid right?
You are ridiculous. I’m Mormon. Maybe you already knew that or maybe you just assumed that, either way I don’t really care. If you switched Romney’s resume and positions with any other candidate I would support that candidate, even if they were polling at the level of Duncan Hunter or another 2nd tier candidate. I would work even harder against Harry Reid if he were the nominee against another Republican, than I am working for Romney in the primary.
What is the definition of a McCainiac? How about Rudybots? Fredheads? Brownbacks? Huckadrones?
I really would like a list of names of who the “Romneybots” are.
May 12th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
David B,
I’m not that familiar with prosecutors. I’d suspect most people aren’t. But, anytime someone says “in the history of humanity”, and George Washington, Gandhi, Jesus Christ, or Abraham Lincoln aren’t involved in the conversation, I think they’ve pretty much revealed their lack of connection with reality. I say silly things like “Romney’s was one of the most successful venture capitalists in the country”, a much smaller subset, and people scream from the hills “hyperbole”.
May 12th, 2007 at 5:37 pm
Ah, Matt, now don’t make yourself look the fool — you had David B in a ridiculous situation, but then blew up Romney’s poll numbers by using the outlier polls. Romney’s average there is a little under half of what you stated. Thirty percent! Honestly! He’s been at 25% at the very highest (Zogby, I believe), still typically lags in the low-to-mid teens in most polls I’ve seen.
Am I the only one who never thinks of Romney as “that Mormon guy”? That’s about the last thing I think of when it comes to him — it’s a total non-issue to me. I despise him for other, better reasons, even though Mormons are pretty silly.
PS — I think you’re a Romneybot, even if you aren’t Mormon. Feel better?
May 12th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
Matt — Way to knock off the cliches, there. There’s been quite a debate as to the usefulness of all of those figures, sans Washington, by the way (JC, Ghandi, Abe).
I tend not to argue over semantics, though, and just cut to the point. So, can’t accuse this Giuliani supporter of screaming about hyperbole!
Dskinner — McCainiac — I like it!
Fredheads! Oh, I’m loving these names.
May 12th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
Dskinner: Not a stupid opinion. I demonstrated a month ago how just about every Romney supporter on the site was a Mormon (and didn’t have any story for why they came to support Romney and never disagreed with the tiniest issue connected to Romney), except for 2 or 3. Since then, most of them post a lot less often. I think they understand they need to be more subtle. It was also interfering with objective debate here. I rarely intend to bring it up again, maybe in one thread a month. This IS an electability issue.
Matt: I agree it was hyperbole, but I can’t think of a more accomplished prosecutor, either. And that item doesn’t usually even make the top list of reasons to support Rudy, since his other positives are even stronger.
May 12th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
I have more cliche amazing figures from the history of humanity that weren’t really that amazing in the ways they’re often celebrated for — Mother Teresa, FDR (domestically), JFK & LBJ, John Lennon (solo, mostly), Oprah — anyone else got any to add?
May 12th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
TLG: As an Objectivist symphatizer, I can guarantee if you study the Mormon movement you will have a different conclusion. If you want to discuss it privately, just include your email address.
May 12th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
No, if I study the Mormon movement, I’ll still have the same opinion. I’m an atheist, I just rank the religions in my mind in the order that I can tolerate them (Judaism I can tolerate the most, Islam the least). I’m not some weirdo who thinks that Mormonism is all about polygamy and secret lives. But certainly we can talk about it in private. I’m on AIM in the evening (I’m on the East Coast, it’s 6:45 here right now) — 10pm and later, usually — APKKIB. Anyone else can feel free to IM me to to talk about politics and philosophy.
May 12th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
With the exception of Mother Teresa, I agree that none of those figures were particularly remarkable. What’s your point? They still, more or less, had fairly historic impacts on the world (though I think JFK will end up being a footnote). Going back to my original post, Jesus Christ, regardless of what you think of him, clearly deserves the distinction “One of the Most Influential Figures in the History of Humanity”. Washington, Lincoln, and Gandhi do as well. That statement, in regards to them, wouldn’t have been hyperbolic. Calling Abraham Lincoln “One of the most amazing leaders in the history of humanity” is certainly debatable, but it’s hardly, on it’s face, absurd.
May 12th, 2007 at 6:00 pm
Matt, why the exception for Mother Teresa? Treating those figures as influential in the scope of all of humanity is certainly hyperbole. For each of their respective nations, they were certainly among the most influential. But Washington had little effect on Italy, for example, and Gandhi had no effect outside of India, Pakistan, South Africa, and the UK. I would argue that such statements are absurd on their face.
May 12th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
JF,
Washington helped birth America. There’s certainly a case to be made that America is the most powerful nation in the history of the world. It’s influence is, in many, respects comparable to ancient Greece or Rome. And just as Homer’s influence has lived on throughout the millenia, in no small part because he had a significant role in Greece’s historical narrative, Washington and Lincoln will cast long historical shadows.
May 12th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
Also, I exempted Mother Teresa, because I had the impression that TLG was interpreting my original statement as referring to uniquely “positive” historical figures. So I was responding to that to begin with. And I personally agreed that the positive aspects of everyone he listed, beyond Mother Teresa (who certainly has somewhat questionable “credentials” as well), were far outweighed by their negative characteristics.
If we’re talking about simply influential, I’d only consider FDR, out of the people he listed, “highly influential” in a grand historical sense.
May 12th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
Matt, sure. But Washington was just a figurehead, and not a good general. I would give more credit to Nathanael Greene than Washington for his military acumen, or Robert Morris for financing the revolution. Washington’s main contribution was setting the tradition of two terms for President, which FDR, may he rot, duly broke. Certainly, America as an entity has had a major impact on the world, but it’s hard to ascribe such impact to individuals outside of the world of dictatorships. It’s easier to say that Stalin or Mao Zedong were some of the most influential individuals in the world, just as you point out that the dictators and philosophers of the ancient world had outsize influence due to their scarcity.
May 12th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
As for Mother Teresa, she was indeed insignificant. She did virtually nothing to end poverty, and indeed, her strict condemnation of birth control condemned many poor areas to decades more of poverty. In the end, she didn’t make a meaningful contribution to ending the suffering of her flocks, as admirable as her attempts were.
May 12th, 2007 at 6:28 pm
David B,
Please send me the link for the thread when you demonstrated that just about every Romneybot on the site was Mormon? If have proven this as a fact you must have their names. Please give me their names so I will know who else is in on the conspiracy to elect Romney. He was so succesful at implementing Mormon policies in Massachusetts that the entire state converted from Catholicism to Mormonism.
I am very upset you figured it out already, but unfortunately for you there is plenty of time for us to buy different colored shirts (post #29) before we trick people into riding our buses to Iowa. Damn! You are so smart. You are the only person on the internet who has figured out our plan.
Do you have any rationale to explain how there are suddenly 9 million Mormons in the United States? (100 million Republicans, 10% RCP average, 90% Mormon support according to David B) Was it our successful takeover of Mass. when Romney was Governor? Last I heard there were about 6 million. I could go on and break it down to individual states where the gap becomes even larger, but why bother.
David, I am serious about that link and the names of the Romneybots who are Mormon and only support Romney because he is also Mormon.
May 12th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
JF,
I confess, I don’t know as much about Washington as I’d like. I tend to pick one president from each historical period and focus on them. John Adams is my favorite from the founding era. Lincoln from the 1840’s to the turn of the century. The Teddy Roosevelt. Then Harry Truman. And finally Reagan.
I’ve focused this way because, I’ve had limited time (I’m only 20), and I get a sense of the broader trends taking place at the time. I learn a bit about Washington through Adams, Cleveland (who I’m also fairly fond of for a Democrat) through Roosevelt, etc. It’s worked out pretty well, but I miss a fair amount of the specifics. So I don’t know enough to say emphatically that Washington was significantly more then a figurehead.
May 12th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
TLG,
Romney is at 32% in NH in the latest poll.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nh/new_hampshire_republican_primary-193.html
He is at 24% in MI in the latest poll.
http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/pres08/mirep8-703.shtml
May 12th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
Dave (#17),
In your post, you basically claim that the terrorists would shrive in their boots when Rudy is at the helm of our country. I agree. But can we say that this is how we would win the war on terrorism? I am not convinced that we could, and I want to bring up my perspective of why we may not win the war with just a strong president.
First, do you actually believe that the terrorists are like the Germany of WWII, where, once committed, they must press through to the completion of the war? Or would they dare a full attack when they knew they could be slammed right and left? I do not think so. I also believe that with a strong president, Iran may step back and hold on what they know. I can see them putting the nuclear production on hold, moving them around, inviting the inspectors, and announced to the world that they have given up on everything. In other words, I can see them playing footies sufficient to pacify the majority of our leaders to the point where they could not justify going to war with them. We could see Iraq all over again. It took us, what, 14 years, of playing footies with Saddem before we finally did something about his WMT effort. This will continue as long as the president is strong, but once he steps down, I can see Iran go back full-blown.
I believe the strongest asset that the terrorists have is that they are very patient. They have all of the time in the world. They may “test” the water frequently over the years, but they won’t put themselves in the position for a strong president to wipe them out. I agree with you that we very likely won’t have another 9/11 during his terms.
But, does this mean we won the war on terrorism? No, it only means we postpone the inevidence. I feel that we must do more, and we can only do more under a strong president who also is smart. He would know that he must fight the idealogy, too. He would lead the effort to raise the living conditions of many of these Muslims, including replacing their education where Radical Islam beliefs are being taught (madrassas). He would challenge us to pour effort into breaking ourselves from the foreign oil as if it was the Space Race in 1960s all over again, cutting of their ability to sustain themselves. He would secure our boundary and ensure that our citizens (yes, we the people) are trained to be aware of the dangers and defending ourselves against them like photo guy in NJ (what a hero he was for being alert!) These are just a few of many things that a smart president would do.
So, yes, the disaster on the scale of 9/11 might not happen under Rudy, who would be a strong president. But it in no way is on the par with declaring the war terrorism won, and we need someone who is smart. We need president who is strong AND who is smart. So far, I am getting the impression that Rudy would just be a strong president, not a smart one. So far, I have not read of his speeches mentioning those, other than that he would be strong against terrorists.
May 12th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
SGS (#78), I have to challenge some of your assumptions.
1) There is no way for Giuliani to prove he is stronger than Bush 43. Bush 43 committed our troops to two wars on the other side of the world, and has sustained them for four years. He intimidated Libya into giving up its nuclear weapons program and forced North Korea back to the negotiating table. How could Giuliani possibly top that? This idea that terrorists will start running scared once President Giuliani is installed is a naive fantasy.
2) Raising living conditions to combat terrorism is a canard. Most of the September 11 terrorists and al Qaeda leaders were well educated and of at least middle class living standards. See more in this CNN article:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/24/schuster.column/index.html
3) I agree we need energy independence, but depriving the terrorists of oil funds won’t stop terrorism, even if it makes it more difficult. Most terrorist attacks are extremely cheap to execute.
However, I agree that the greatest weapon of all is patience. Turkey eviscerated the PKK after two decades of terrorism only after it finally captured its leader, and the UK outlasted several decades of IRA terrorism by patient police action. I am concerned that Giuliani and McCain don’t have the patience to see things through (let alone the American people), which would be hugely damaging to our efforts against terrorism.
May 12th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
I agree that this speech helps clear the water a little for Giuliani. After the last month of flubs on abortion, I was becoming increasingly opposed to his nomination. Basically, the most important thing for Rudy to do is convince conservatives that the judges he appoints will be good ones. His clarification that he supports originalist is important (mainly because the founders did not include the right to abortion in the Constitution).
May 12th, 2007 at 9:08 pm
SGS, I’m standing and applauding your post, simply because of how well thought out and concise it is. Terrorists are extremely smart, and extremely patient. Has anyone read “Rainbow Six” by Tom Clancy? My father just lent it to me (I’m coming so late to the game, I know) and it starts with the main guy on a plane that is hijacked by three (stupid) guys who end up being tied up and presented to the local authorities on a silver platter, basically.
What was interesting to me was the thought process that the main guy goes through while trying to figure out how to take these bad guys down. It is blatantly obvious that the book was written before 9-11, because the thought process never includes that variable of the hijackers being willing to fly themselves into a building. Before 9-11, no one ever conceived of terrorists using that technique. If you have access to that book, reread the first chapter (not very long) and you’ll see what I mean. What the main character is thinking was standard training for the military before 9-11.
The terrorists aren’t playing by the rules of the game that used to be so well established. We’ve got a whole new breed on our hands, and they don’t play nice with others.
Hava
http://mittforpresident.wordpress.com/
May 12th, 2007 at 9:12 pm
Not quite, Hava. In 1994, Tom Clancy published “Debt of Honor”, which describes a terrorist crashing a 747 with a full fuel load into the Capitol, killing the President and many of the House and Senate members. It’s rather chilling that he imagined such an attack seven years before it happened.
May 12th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
David B,
For a gay atheist you have an awful lot of pent up hate directed towards “mormondom”. Perhaps you should see a psychologist about that.
“You’re right, a ‘Romneybot’ is a Mormon who supports Romney only because he is co-cultist.”
You are a funny guy. You are far more “botty” in your hate of Romney than anyone here is in their support for him.
“As an Objectivist symphatizer, I can guarantee if you study the Mormon movement you will have a different conclusion. If you want to discuss it privately, just include your email address.”
“Call me a bigot all you like, but this huge white elephant is poised to have a major impact on the election. Not talking about it is not recognizing reality.”
A little heads up: If people call you a bigot it will be because you most certainly are one.
May 13th, 2007 at 5:04 am
I’m not about to jump into this frying pan, i.e., this argument about Romneybots, Mormonism, etc.
I will, however, say, in response to this sentence –
– I think you should reexamine your conclusion. For a perfect counterexample, see Al Sharpton.
May 13th, 2007 at 8:56 am
MJS,
check out our latest conversation with David in the post by DaveG.