GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
In a campaign that for the last month had been reduced to floating crosses, haircuts, quick quips, and questions like “What would Jesus do,” it is sad that it takes a tragic event of international proportions to remind voters and pundits alike of the one issue that hovers over the entire presidency- the fact that we are at war. It says a great deal about the sorry state of affairs and attention spans that the next Commander in Chief will have to inherit an unholy mess in the Middle East, while for the last few months, the voting public and pundits have not paid attention to it.
Pundits need to get over religion, hairdos, stupid questions from youtube debates, and any of the other garbage that generation Y has bestowed upon us, and wisen up. The safety of our country and our men and women in combat depend on it. We, as voters, owe them that much. Everything else becomes secondary when it comes to the matters of life and death. I’m not talking about the lives of the unborn here, for that is another debate for another time. We won’t be able to argue over pro-life credentials if we don’t have people to make babies. That might be an over exaggeration, but you get the point. All the other issues should still take a back seat when it comes to the safety of our nation and its citizens. This is one of the defining moments of the 21st century, and I hope the GOP nominee, whoever it may be, is ready to deal with that.
From the moment they take office, they will have to make decisions with the lives of our troops at stake. There won’t be time to ponder the decisions, wait for reports, dig through different suggestions; they must be able to come into the presidency with the ability to make choices of monumental consequences without second guessing, regrets, or time to change their mind.
That time is coming, and it is up to the voters, the pundits, and the nominees to ensure that whoever the candidate is, they are willing, able, and fully prepared to take that responsibility on their shoulders. This isn’t a criticism of any one candidate, but hopefully a wakeup call to those who need to get their priorities in order.
December 28th, 2007 at 10:59 am
Governor Bill Richardson (D-N.M.) cited, while U.N. ambassador, his 1997 discussions with Giuliani about settling foreign diplomats’ unpaid parking tickets.
“Over the years, I’ve negotiated with the toughest characters abroad — Saddam Hussein in Iraq, North Korea, Cuba on political prisoners,� Richardson said. “The toughest guy I’ve ever had to negotiate with is Rudy Giuliani.�
…………………………………….
America will regret not electing Giuliani.
December 28th, 2007 at 11:03 am
yes, National Security is important, but it is far from the only major issue that the next President will face. If we choose our nominee based on only one issue, Republicans could be in for a miserable four years.
What we need is a President who can lead on Security/Military matters, while still being about to command on domestic policy.
Republicans have been retreating back to military and security affairs for too long, all while handing other major issues, such as immigration, education, economic policy, and others to the Democrats.
Its time for Republicans to pick a leader who is Conservative on all of the major issues (including social issues and immigration), so that we can’t start taking back some ground from the liberals.
December 28th, 2007 at 11:05 am
Huckabee thinks Pakistan is west of Afganistan.
This guy’s always good for a laugh.
December 28th, 2007 at 11:05 am
We live in a time when the 20 second sound bite dominates all else. It drives the evening news and the headlines. We also tend to favor the sensational and salacious which gravitates towards the hairdo and cheapshot stories.
Look at our debates, the fact that we even can call them “debates” is an insult to the english language.
The public at large does not have the appetite or patience to engage in a serious ideological discussion of the weightier matters of this country. Heck, if you find the “news” objectionable, you can simply turn to whatever station or website which headlines the news you think is relevant and falls within your ideological predisposition.
December 28th, 2007 at 11:06 am
Don’t worry. The Huckman is coming to the rescue:
“And the ultimate thing is, I may not be the expert that some people are on foreign policy, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night.” -Mike Huckabee
December 28th, 2007 at 11:07 am
I think that because Bhutto was championed by many on the American left, this may actually be good for getting dems on board with the GWOT.
December 28th, 2007 at 11:07 am
#2
You must be talking about Fred.
December 28th, 2007 at 11:09 am
McCain opines on Rudy’s lack of international experience over at Politico:
December 28th, 2007 at 11:12 am
Fred would be ok…though I have concerns about his positions on social issues, and concerns about his age and energy level.
I was talking about Romney, who has experience working with a liberal legislature, who has a long history of sucessful executive leadership, and who supports Conservative positions on all of the major issues.
December 28th, 2007 at 11:22 am
Tommy, the sad truth I think is that most Americans are apathetic to politics. We enjoy a lot of good things in this country, freedom, economic prosperity, etc. And as long as those things stay the way they are, a LOT of people choose not to get involved. You’re right though, the sad reality is that if people aren’t involved and realize what’s at stake, they may loose all the wonderful things they enjoy. We should be vigilant in protecting our rights or we will loose them. As Andrew Carnegie said, “The safety of the Republic lies in the education of its people”, and I might add: the involvement and care of its people.
December 28th, 2007 at 11:29 am
ACT,
National security? This isn’t really about national security (securing the borders, defending the home turf). It’s about inheriting an international war.
It’s important, but just another major issue? When American lives are on the line, it trumps everything else. Yes, we need an across the board conservative, but this issue is what has defined Bush, and it WILL define the next president. If the war had been going great over the last 5 years, Bush wouldn’t have to worry about the criticism from overspending and other issues half as much. 65% of Americans don’t all disapprove him for his domestic policiies, about 55% despise him because of the war, and the last 15% he lost were the conservatives who were upset at the other problems. If the war hadn’t been so badly mishandled in the beginning and by setting false expectations of easy victory, he wouldn’t be in the mess he’s gotten himself into over his ratings.
For someone to throw the soldiers lives in with other issues is just wrong. This trumps everything else. We need a conservative, but not at the expense of more human lives being put in harms way on that persons watch. I’d rather have a democrat who can successfully handle the War than a republican whose conservative, but can’t handle the war, costing us thousands of lives that could’ve been avoided had that person been able to successfully conduct the fight we are in.
December 28th, 2007 at 11:35 am
2
In its last election, a new party concerned with issues involving the elderly won seats in the Israeli Parliament. It was that kind of election. Israelis thought that social issues are just as important as security. So they didn’t elect the candidates thought of as the National Security guys but went for domestic issues as equally important.
The winner, went on to lose the Lebanon war to terrorists. Rockets are falling on an Israeli town every single day.
In time of war, for them, and for us, national security trumps everything else. When at war, better have a wartime President.
December 28th, 2007 at 11:49 am
The war on terror is monumentally important. That’s why I want a man like Mitt Romney who has the intelligence, and organizational skills to pull the very best minds together to develop a strategy, and implement the tactics required to pull it off. This will call for someone who is used to having to modify a strategy (or tactic) if everything does not go perfectly. It’s a lot like playing a game of chess. You want the smartest guy at the helm, while at the same time one who has the values base upon which all of his policies ride.
Mitt Romney can handle a lot more balls in the air than one or two. He can handle the domestic issues at the the same time as he begins bringing down the terrorists. I truly believe this guy is the man for the job whether you are talking about foreign policy, homeland security, economic issues, or strengthening our families and improving education, etc.
December 28th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
GodVoter.org Picks Romney: http://www.godvoter.org/news-romney-disdorsement.html