Last year I pointed to this Rudy Giuliani piece printed in USA Today for the 5th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.
It's still relevant, and I haven't seen anybody saying anything better this anniversary, so I'll point to Giuliani's comments, again.
I still think he'd be a good choice for President, but I'd be happier personally with President Fred Thompson running things.
I suspect that a President Hillary Clinton wouldn't be a disaster with regards to the war on terror, despite the lefty talking points she's been parroting from time to time during the endless campaign.
Any of the other Democrats would be disastrous, however.
Showing posts with label Rudy Giuliani for President. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rudy Giuliani for President. Show all posts
11 September 2007
01 June 2007
What If This Is All Part of the Plan . . .
Peggy Noonan has stirred thoughts across the internets regarding her feelings of betrayal at how the Bush administration has acted with regards to immigration reform. I'm too lazy to link, you've been probably soaking in all the arguments, counterarguments and recriminations, so a rehash hear won't be needed.
The biggest effect has been the massive drop in money coming into the RNC. The rank and file is duly pissed. They're showing their anger by shutting their checkbooks, at least for the moment.
But what if that's a good thing for the GOP in the long run?
I think the end result of this current mess is that it weakens conservatives, even in the primaries, and strengthens social moderates. That seems backwards, but the social conservative wing of the GOP, formerly known as Reagan Democrats, are weakly partisan at best. They will sit out the primaries if they think they're not getting served. If *shamnesty* (as Michelle Malkin likes to call it) passes, the primary candidate who stands to benefit most is Rudy Giuliani. McCain has been mortally wounded, Romney is weak on this issue, and Fred Thompson may not be able to compete against Rudy if the social conservatives stay home.
If your main goal in the Bush administration is to see policies similar to the ones that you currently have in place, Rudy is your man. He's for low taxes, an aggressive stance with regards to terrorists and their sponsoring states, and he's never said he's against easing restrictions on immigration, only that enforcement should come first (a position he shares with Thompson, though Thompson manages to sound tougher on the subject).
The backlash has not helped the aggressively anti-amnesty candidates like Hunter and Tancredo, they still get no traction, so those that are truly upset with the party will stay home.
What the GOP has to hope for is that when it comes general election campaign time that whichever Democrat gets the nod will manage to scare those folks turned off by the GOP back to the polls and vote against Obama or Clinton, rather than for Giuliani or Thompson. The capacity for Hillary to generate negatives is phenomenal, so if she's the candidate, things are looking up for the GOP. Obama presents a bigger problem, he's slippery, and even though he might be an even bigger socialist than Hillary, he sells it much better. He seems prone to stumble between now and when the votes count, and Hillary has the unions in her pocket, and they generally pick who gets the Dem nod. The anti-war sentiment might push Obama over the top, but if it does, their anti-military rhetoric will damage him in the general election.
Despite all that's going on, it's hard to see what states Giuliani would lose that Pres. Bush won, whether he's against Clinton or Obama, plus he'd force the Dems to spend treasure in New York and California, and just having to compete in those states could seriously damage the Democrats nationwide.
So, driving away the GOP activists now might be a brilliant move to help get a socially moderate, fiscally conservative, tough on terror New Yorker nominated as the GOP standard bearer. But only if the Dems are stupid enough to force them back into the GOP's bosom by running a general election campaign that scares the bejeezus out of folks who think draconian new global warming regulations, nationalized health care, capitulation in the face of terror, and much higher taxes are bad ideas.
Stranger things have happened.
The biggest effect has been the massive drop in money coming into the RNC. The rank and file is duly pissed. They're showing their anger by shutting their checkbooks, at least for the moment.
But what if that's a good thing for the GOP in the long run?
I think the end result of this current mess is that it weakens conservatives, even in the primaries, and strengthens social moderates. That seems backwards, but the social conservative wing of the GOP, formerly known as Reagan Democrats, are weakly partisan at best. They will sit out the primaries if they think they're not getting served. If *shamnesty* (as Michelle Malkin likes to call it) passes, the primary candidate who stands to benefit most is Rudy Giuliani. McCain has been mortally wounded, Romney is weak on this issue, and Fred Thompson may not be able to compete against Rudy if the social conservatives stay home.
If your main goal in the Bush administration is to see policies similar to the ones that you currently have in place, Rudy is your man. He's for low taxes, an aggressive stance with regards to terrorists and their sponsoring states, and he's never said he's against easing restrictions on immigration, only that enforcement should come first (a position he shares with Thompson, though Thompson manages to sound tougher on the subject).
The backlash has not helped the aggressively anti-amnesty candidates like Hunter and Tancredo, they still get no traction, so those that are truly upset with the party will stay home.
What the GOP has to hope for is that when it comes general election campaign time that whichever Democrat gets the nod will manage to scare those folks turned off by the GOP back to the polls and vote against Obama or Clinton, rather than for Giuliani or Thompson. The capacity for Hillary to generate negatives is phenomenal, so if she's the candidate, things are looking up for the GOP. Obama presents a bigger problem, he's slippery, and even though he might be an even bigger socialist than Hillary, he sells it much better. He seems prone to stumble between now and when the votes count, and Hillary has the unions in her pocket, and they generally pick who gets the Dem nod. The anti-war sentiment might push Obama over the top, but if it does, their anti-military rhetoric will damage him in the general election.
Despite all that's going on, it's hard to see what states Giuliani would lose that Pres. Bush won, whether he's against Clinton or Obama, plus he'd force the Dems to spend treasure in New York and California, and just having to compete in those states could seriously damage the Democrats nationwide.
So, driving away the GOP activists now might be a brilliant move to help get a socially moderate, fiscally conservative, tough on terror New Yorker nominated as the GOP standard bearer. But only if the Dems are stupid enough to force them back into the GOP's bosom by running a general election campaign that scares the bejeezus out of folks who think draconian new global warming regulations, nationalized health care, capitulation in the face of terror, and much higher taxes are bad ideas.
Stranger things have happened.
06 March 2007
Dick Cheney Should Resign (And George W. Bush, Too)
But not for the reasons you're thinking.
Make up any excuse you want, the blod clot, fatigue, family, but I think the country would be better off if every two term President resigned early in their 7th year in office.
Pick a successor, make them President, and take the lame duck pall off the presidency that lingers after each President's second midterm election.
If President Clinton had stepped aside and annointed a President Gore early in 1999, Gore would have most likely won easily.
If President Reagan had done the same, much of the damage caused by his second term scandals would have been mitigated (but either way, he would have been followed by a President George H.W. Bush).
If President Eisenhower had decided to golf full time sometime in 1959, there may never have been a President Kennedy, and President Nixon would probably have deftly kept us out of Vietnam, or fought the war full on to victory, he certainly wouldn't have been as half-assed with regards to foreign policy as Kennedy and Johnson were.
So, given that the current President Bush is a wounded lame duck, and Vice President Cheney expresses no interest in ever being President, appointing President Giuliani sometime before May 1st would energize the Executive Branch, and give the Bush Administration a hand in shaping the next administration.
The reason I say a President Giuliani is because he is the only person interested in the job after the remainder of this term that would be acceptable to Congressional Democrats, as well as rank and file Republicans.
If he wanted to be truly audacious, he would pick Senator Lieberman as a successor. That confirmation battle would be some entertaining viewing.
Otherwise, President Rice for 20 months, or President Thompson, or President Gingrich would be fun, too, but each of those folks might not have an easy time getting through the Congress (actually Thompson would probably sail through confirmation, but the Congress would block Rice or Gingrich).
But, first a Cheney resignation, followed by a quick confirmation hearing, followed by a Bush resignation would lead to a more effective and robust Executive Branch.
The Democratic Party wouldn't know what hit them.
Term limits forces this on Presidents. If they want to take command of the continuity of the office rather than leave it up to the vagaries of partisan politics, then giving a favored successor most likely to continue their policies (or even someone with different ideas, but the vigor to make them happen) a leg up in the next election is the way to go.
A lot can happen in the 21+ months left for President Bush, but I think someone who has the opportunity to continue beyond that 21 month period would be in a position to be a much more effective leader.
Make up any excuse you want, the blod clot, fatigue, family, but I think the country would be better off if every two term President resigned early in their 7th year in office.
Pick a successor, make them President, and take the lame duck pall off the presidency that lingers after each President's second midterm election.
If President Clinton had stepped aside and annointed a President Gore early in 1999, Gore would have most likely won easily.
If President Reagan had done the same, much of the damage caused by his second term scandals would have been mitigated (but either way, he would have been followed by a President George H.W. Bush).
If President Eisenhower had decided to golf full time sometime in 1959, there may never have been a President Kennedy, and President Nixon would probably have deftly kept us out of Vietnam, or fought the war full on to victory, he certainly wouldn't have been as half-assed with regards to foreign policy as Kennedy and Johnson were.
So, given that the current President Bush is a wounded lame duck, and Vice President Cheney expresses no interest in ever being President, appointing President Giuliani sometime before May 1st would energize the Executive Branch, and give the Bush Administration a hand in shaping the next administration.
The reason I say a President Giuliani is because he is the only person interested in the job after the remainder of this term that would be acceptable to Congressional Democrats, as well as rank and file Republicans.
If he wanted to be truly audacious, he would pick Senator Lieberman as a successor. That confirmation battle would be some entertaining viewing.
Otherwise, President Rice for 20 months, or President Thompson, or President Gingrich would be fun, too, but each of those folks might not have an easy time getting through the Congress (actually Thompson would probably sail through confirmation, but the Congress would block Rice or Gingrich).
But, first a Cheney resignation, followed by a quick confirmation hearing, followed by a Bush resignation would lead to a more effective and robust Executive Branch.
The Democratic Party wouldn't know what hit them.
Term limits forces this on Presidents. If they want to take command of the continuity of the office rather than leave it up to the vagaries of partisan politics, then giving a favored successor most likely to continue their policies (or even someone with different ideas, but the vigor to make them happen) a leg up in the next election is the way to go.
A lot can happen in the 21+ months left for President Bush, but I think someone who has the opportunity to continue beyond that 21 month period would be in a position to be a much more effective leader.
14 November 2006
Woohoo!
Folks voted for reform, and looks like they're getting ABSCAM.
Way to go Democratic leadership.
It warms the heart of this committed Pachyderm.
Corrupt, clueless, and a defeatist on Iraq.
Wonderful.
Luckily, the damage he can do is mitigated by that whole checks and balances thing the founders devised. They might have known what they were doing.
The big negative to all this is the huge smiles across the lips of Zayman Al-Zawahiri and Pres. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (I leave out Osama Bin Laden, cause the dead don't smile).
(and don't even get me started on the latest book from the WORST EX-PRESIDENT EVER!!!, I'm trying to keep this blog mostly expletive free, so there's nothing else to say)
All I can say to all this is, RUDY, RUDY, RUDY, RUDY, RUDY!!!!!!
Way to go Democratic leadership.
It warms the heart of this committed Pachyderm.
Corrupt, clueless, and a defeatist on Iraq.
Wonderful.
Luckily, the damage he can do is mitigated by that whole checks and balances thing the founders devised. They might have known what they were doing.
The big negative to all this is the huge smiles across the lips of Zayman Al-Zawahiri and Pres. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (I leave out Osama Bin Laden, cause the dead don't smile).
(and don't even get me started on the latest book from the WORST EX-PRESIDENT EVER!!!, I'm trying to keep this blog mostly expletive free, so there's nothing else to say)
All I can say to all this is, RUDY, RUDY, RUDY, RUDY, RUDY!!!!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)