So, here's my problem. What if it comes down to Hillary vs. Rudy? I am so fucked if it does. I think Rudy is the better candidate yet I know that Hillary might actually do some of the things I would like to see done....albeit in an evil way.I have already told myself that if Hillary wins and picks Obama for her VP (something that would give the Democrats the White House for the next 16 years), I will vote for Hillary. And if Rudy picks a redneck for a running mate, I might be pushed towards Hillary.
I don't know. I can see myself excusing one letter grade level in a Romney (C) and Hillary (D) match up but three letter grades? As it stands right now, Hillary was some work to do to get my vote....otherwise, I will be voting for Rudy.
9 comments:
okay, what is it about rudy that you (remarkably) LIKE?? His own kid (17-yr-old Caroline Giuliani) rooted for Obama before her dad made her take down her Facebook page. Forget 9/11 (his post-tragedy limelight performance)which was a once-in-a-lifetime PR miracle for the flagging popularity of mr g, we all remember how UNPOPULAR and ridiculed bushie was before 9/11 elevated him to the stratosphere from which his policies have now brought him back down. WHICH of Rudy's policies (domestic or foreign) would actually make you elect him PRESIDENT (of the most powerful and interventionist nation on earth)? I'm not talking his fraggle face or smile..
Well, you can start here for my answer...
http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/2007/05/mayor-of-our-town.html
More later....
Oh, the above link references Profiles in Courage piece I wrote which you should read before reading the above one..
Rudy turned NYC around long before 9/11 happened. City was cleaned up (especially Times Square) and the crime rate dropped big time. Despite disagreements on specific policies, very few people argue the results (not his intentions, his results) of his term as mayor of that town anymore. NYC is a much better place today than it was under David Dinkens.
Another thing Joanne, a Governor like Bill Richardson or Mitt Romney, does what the President does only in miniature. He has to propose a budget each year then deal with his state legislature to resolve a final budget, he has to consider legislation passed by his legislature and whether to sign it into law or not. A Governor has a cabinet he has to manage that oversees the laws written by the legislature and all the attendants tasks associated with administering like rule promulgation. His administration also has to consider each state's vast bureaucracies and a Governor even has to deal with foreign policy (in a way) with a cantankerous enemy: the US Federal Government. In fact, each Governor even has a State Department of sorts. Over at 400 N Capitol Street in DC there is a building that houses offices for all 50 States who has the Governor's liaisons to the US Government housed there. They represent the interests of each state to Washington and weigh in often on issues important to their state like trade for instance. Romney was/is a very successful businessman also so he also had to "run" something and the results are visible.
That cannot be said of senators or members of congress like Fred Thompson or Hillary. A US Senator or member of Congress oversees a very small staff...a little more if they are a Chairman of a Committee (maybe 50 in that case)and the committees themselves have a very narrow focus relative to the big picture of things. Even the Appropriations Committee, the most powerful of all the committees, is just about funding and not about policy as a whole, so the focus is narrow relative to actually governing. The Congress is to governing what academia is to real world practice. A place where things are considered but not much practical application outside the quest for knowledge (sorry, had to throw that little shot in there).
Notice that many of our recent presidents (GWB, Clinton, Reagan, etc) were all governors prior to their tenure in the white house. I think that may be because party leaders know that members of congress or the senate leave a large trail of votes that will no doubt be mulled over with a fine tooth comb by political opponents for inconsistencies. Wasn't JFK the last US senator elected to the office of president?
Yes, he was. For me, Joanne, it comes down to the crime thing. I think Rudy knows that terrorism is an international crime problem, not something that Bush can admit for whatever reason.
Rudy is also a social liberal and he makes no bones about it. The fact that he is hated by the right and the left should immediately make you like him. To me, that means he is on the right track.
hmmmmmm.
right. and governors reagan, clinton and bush -- were and are GOOD presidents // role models for the job???
Not withstanding that all three were and are ultra-charismatic, yes bushie too in his own hard-to-pin-down way (i like all of you, but maybe in more concentrated doses, have watched hours of the man) i used to LOVE reagan, boy could he talk a storm, and a lot of what he said at the time (and esp HOW he charmingly said it) made a LOT of sense (i have since READ between the political speech lines and seen the actual state fallouts) i cried at bushie's first 2000 inauguration speech (?!!) and watched clinton charm a multi-faith crowd, fluently quoting from the bible, torah and quran -- while making unrelated jokes that were classy and hilarious -- again, what a refined and charming human in the flesh. Clinton may have been less aggressive and confrontational in his foreign policy style and even greenspan sings his visionary economic praises, but basically, they were all following EXACTLY the SAME foreign and economic policies that have polarised wealth (taxing the poor to a hundred degrees more than capital gains made on the 'markets' funding the elite's economic plunders, which have made poverty the number one killer around the world) to the most 'extreme' degrees and foreign policies (which regan and haig would have been proud of) that have brought us 'the New Middle East' -- i.e. World War Three but not as Bush cutely describes it in his pressers. who cares, right?? We're all gonna die f--- the planet and the good (understood in various ways) will live in eternal rapture or peace in heaven. Rudy will take the (OLD) new ME to WW3 (unless there is a national awakening) and who knows, Mrs. Clinton might do exactly the same to look tough and cool for her pro-war constituents... i KNOW that's why some will specifically vote for him (anti-crime but not anti-killing-of-innocents on a massive scale.)
I think Clinton will win it and choose Wesley Clarke as her VP (if not Clarke -- it'll be a military man.) and (as everyone knows) Bill will be a behind the scenes force to be reckoned with, relishing the 'success as revenge' opportunity.
It's all gonna be fun, fun, fun! Can't wait...
I think Rudy knows that terrorism is an international crime problem, not something that Bush can admit for whatever reason.
"For whatever reason".
Might I suggest that this might be enlightening on that concept?
Particularly:
"At what point do we admit that our nation-building efforts at the outset of this exercise were so ham-fisted that the path of least long-term harm for both us and them is to withdraw?"
I imagine at the time we believe this to be so.
That YOU believe it to be so, Gabriel — against the testimony of Petraeus, and those who have recently visited Iraq or who are currently serving there or reporting from inside the country — is your prerogative. But you simply can’t MAKE those who don’t believe your premise “admit” to it on the basis of your passion.
To repeat: You might find that "terrorism" is an "international crime problem". But the reason Bush "can't admit it" is because he doesn't agree with you.
even if Bush doesn't agree that 'terrorism' is an international crime problem -- & you're right, he does NOT see it that way -- he + his Admin see Terrorism as the greatest direct threat to US interests in the ME, and the number one overall threat to US interests anywhere -- anybody could be forgiven for thinking that this poltical and military approach (pre-emptive strikes, covert or overt regime changes, no international-law-tied causus belli required for commencing new programmes, splitting the Arab World into good guys versus bad: pro-US players & moderates versus independent-minded resisters & extremists, strengthening the enemy's resolve, public image and popularity all the while in a region in which our military presence is creating problems far faster than solutions) anybody could be forgiven for thinking the approach not only isn't working, but based on history -- will not work. If working means: bring security to the US and peace to the region we say we hope to stabilise and pacify.
I know that's not the point you made and the link page you posted ('Protein Wisdom') also says that the solution is LONG term. That would be the only way to justify this long (long..) War. US intersts in the oil-rich and ultra-strategic Arab World have ALWAYS been long-term in vision, alive and thriving since the 40s, and especially since closer ties with Israel.
I'm not disagreeing with what you posted. I'm just thinking out loud, that the FACT that the President doesn't see Terrorism as an international crime problem (i don't see it as an ICP either, but i don't see it as a 'War on Terror') and the fact that different people see this in differen ways, doesn't change reality. Which is either that the BUSHies are WINNING, because the road to WW3 (and all the freebies inbetween, all the corruption dividends / money-siphoning and corporate mark-ups in Iraq, all the chaos divisions death and weakening destruction in the Arab World) is part of the grand PLAN, or the stated policy rhetoric versus actuality, means he's/they're losing it -- and covering tracks.
Couldn't have said it better myself, JT!
Post a Comment