While thanking God almighty for the return of the National Football League, my thoughts returned to politics as the Indianapolis Colts defender their World Championship with a thrashing of their opponents. The Colts are a great metaphor for America. They burned brightly, and people questioned whether the only thing left to do was decline. Time will tell, but the Dynasty that is America will not go quietly into the night. We have more to prove, and more to accomplish. There is always more.
I think about politics, and how the field of republican candidates are supposedly the worst we have had in some time. I utterly reject this view. The current crop of republican candidates is the best field we have had since 1980. The 1980 field produced Ronald Reagan, a great President for eight years. It gave us George Herbert Walker Bush, who would become President 8 years later. It also gave us Bob Dole, who would win the Presidential nomination on his third try 16 years after he first sought the nomination. It also gave us Howard Baker, a very respected Senate Majority Leader.
This 2008 group of candidates is phenomenal.
Yes, people will talk about the dwarves, aka Brownback, Hunter, Tancredo and Rupaul. They will even mention Huckabee, who is now mid tier. Yet does anybody judge the 1980 candidates by the lower tier candidates? Does anybody even remember them? Should we judge republican candidates by Bob Dornan, Alan Keyes, or Morrie Taylor? How about Bob Smith? I would be in shock if anyone could tell me who Arthur Fletcher was. He did run, and did not get much attention.
There are four top tier candidates, and they are all fine men.
Rudy Giuliani became America’s Mayor on 9/11. Some would say that anybody would have risen to the occasion. Ray Nagin or Kathleen Blanco, anyone? Not everybody is a leader. Rudy did not burst into tears and state how overwhelmed he was. He got to work, and healed a city. Had 9/11 not happened, he would still be one of the greatest Mayors ever. His unique approaches to crime worked. They worked. Some say that he benefited from the national drop in the crime rate. This is backwards. The national drop in crime was mainly due to the drop in Gotham City. New York City is now a world class city again, and that is because of Rudy Giuliani.
John McCain is an American hero. It is not that he was a prisoner of war. It was that he was offered early release, and he refused it because it did not include the release of all of his men. He refused to leave his fellow soldiers behind. he was beaten, bloodied, and tortured, but he did not break. Loyalty and honor do not come any greater than this man. He has angered many politicians by insisting on reducing spending and weeding out corruption. Those that object to this are often the big spenders, and occasionally the most corrupt as well.
Mitt Romney built a successful business empire, and then turned around the Salt Lake City Olympics after an IOC scandal had left them supposedly tarnished beyond repair. He repaired them. He cut taxes in liberal Massachusetts. He even nearly defeated liberal lion Ted Kennedy in a 1994 Senate race. Nobody else has come even close.
Fred Thompson has had two successful careers, one as a successful actor, and the other as a respected attorney (yes, they do exist). He distinguished himself during Watergate, and in 1994 successfully ousted Jim Sasser in Tennessee. He also did what few Senators ever do…he quit and went back to work in the private sector after one term. He could have easily been reelected, but he kept his promise that many in the class of 1994 made, to stay for a short time and not get sucked into the trappings of power.
All of these men have their flaws. Giuliani is twice divorced, and has backed gun control. McCain and Thompson both backed the awful campaign finance reform law bearing McCain’s name. McCain is also a divorcee, and Thompson had a reputation for being more interested in the ladies than in legislation. Romney is often seen as too slick, and his commitment to social conservatism has been questioned.
So what? The answer that should be replayed over and over whenever perfection is desired is that Ronald Reagan raised taxes in 1982, Outside of my family, there is no other person I have more reverence for than the Gipper. Winning the cold war allows for a mulligan on that tax hike, in the same way George W.Bush gets a mulligan for raising steel tariffs due to his fabulous economy and the Roberts Supreme Court.
The bottom line, one that the democrats fail to grasp, is that nobody of any consequence cares about whether black transsexuals should be given reparations for the right to have gay slave descendants get married. Those issues affect some Americans passionately, but the War on Terror affects everybody. Who cares if homosexual rabbits worried about global warming should have the right to abortions when Islamofacist terrorists want to render us extinct from the Earth?
The War on Terror matters. Iraq and Iran are serious issues. Giuliani, McCain, Romney and Thompson all favor a full throttled victory in the War on Terror. They do not see it as a bumper sticker. They see it as a fight for the very existence of free people everywhere.
The democrats want to fight Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. The republicans want to find and kill Osama Bin Laden. If the democrats feel this way as well, why don’t they talk about it? At least mention the guy.
All four republican contenders favored going into Iraq from the beginning, and have never wavered. Some of them have even been staunch defenders of President Bush, and the Bush Doctrine. They supported the war when it was popular, stayed strong when it became unpopular, and are now watching the democrats turn into pretzels trying to appease the left wing jackals as the surge continues to work, and the war again gains support.
Republicans have every right to be frustrated. For one thing, we lost both houses of congress. I remain overwhelmingly optimistic because the country did not swing to the left. If it did, the current democratic congress would have a popularity rating more than half of President Bush. Republicans lost because the republican base got fed up with their own revolutionaries acting like the very democrats they derided. If anything, conservative principles were strengthened by the loss. Also, it would help if we could avoid being known as the party that molests children. Neither Mark Foley or Larry Craig actually did that, but the perception is that republicans are the Minnesota Vikings of boat party politics.
I have often said that trusting democrats to run the country is like trusting the Minnesota Vikings to babysit your kids on a boat. However, republicans are seen as just as awful, if not more.
Republicans cannot let frustration over our mistakes color the fact that their are four brilliant, tough, competent, capable, and very telegenic men running for President.
Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson are all fine men. We should be delighted that any of them will be our nominee.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/10/relax_republicans_this_is_a_fi.html
There will never be another Ronald Reagan, and to try to expect that would be unrealistic. Reagan was a giant. The USA Olympic Men’s Hockey Team will never be as special as the 1980 team, but that should not invalidate any future wins they bring to us in the future.
Nobody is perfect, but republicans are lucky. We will have a phenomenal general election candidate in 2008. We have 4 very fine men to choose from.
eric
I agree, but cannot shake this fear that Hellary will be our next President.
BHG
Hillary can’t win. If she gets the nom, then you cons can put any “fine man” you want in there. I’m sure they’ll represent the American people… er, uh… corporations really well.
Huckabee is my GOP fav. What would be the one for you cons for the Dems? I like Richardson. Wouldn’t you all, given the Dem choices?
JMJ
Hellary….yeah…good one. Someone recently told me that there is no one that can motivate republican women to vote like Shrillary. So I’m kinda sayin’…bring her on! ;->
I was trying, as I often do, to look at the field – all sides – objectively and see where I fall. With all honesty I admit…I cannot even objectively consider HRC. I cannot abide her. Period. She’s a total no.
Obama…is just a face. No matter what I think of him as a person…and I have no interest, really in thinking about him….I cannot get past his inexperience.
Okay, Edwards. I can look at him, and he has experience. And in my attempt to be objective, I discount the talk of being the Breck girl…but after that….two things stop me thinking seriously any further; first, his wife. I hear more about her ideas, thoughts and comments, than I do him. I am appalled that they at ALL brought her health to the national conversation. In my most objective moment, I cannot see a legitimate reason for her prominence in HIS presidential campaign. Second, his inescapable hypocrisy regarding poverty. Please. Just….come on…
If I were a democrat, I would be encouraging Liebermann back into the party, and into running for President. Whatever his democratic leanings, I can respect him on national security…and at this point in our history, that is our most important consideration. With the exception of desperately needed Social Security reform, the home front is in good shape comparatively.
What of the republican field. I really appreciate your piece today, G. You have more insight into the candidates than I, and it stretches me to learn more.
Gut level? Giuliani. The main reason?; he has balls, and he uses them. His record in New York is amazing, and reflects the kind of leader I want. A guy who looks at the problems, determines the solutions that will work, and gets it done. My version of wham, bam, thank you ma’am. No, I do not support abortion, but I don’t think he does either. I think he takes a practical look at it, though, and pushes for the more healthy alternatives. But to be honest again, the more social issues do not concern me as much as a man who can get the job done, and is not afraid to do it. He has my take on national security as well. So on the strength of all of that, in this pre-primary season…he’s my gut level choice.
Romney? I have heard good things, but I do not know enough about him for an informed opinion. He strikes me as maybe a get it done type, but I simply don’t know enough.
Thompson? Well….I felt better about him earlier, before he took so long to declare. At the moment, he’s just a face, like Obama, to me. He does have more experience than Obama, but at this time, he seems more Hollywood than government to me.
And what of McCain? Well…I have a Hilary response to him. In other words, I have a negative response to him based on his activities in congress, the McCain Fiengold gig, and his stand on immigration. It is so negative, I have to say I don’t even look at him as a contender…just like HRC. And that is totally subjective.
So….objectively speaking for me at this time, partisanship aside; Giuliani. NMI on Romney, Thompson. No on Obama, Edwards. And not a chance on HRC and McCain.
My two cents.
Carole,
What exactly is the hypocrisy of a rich man standing up for the poor? Wouldn’t the label of “hypocrisy” apply to a rich man who stands for the rich? Or would that be just “Republican?”
Why would you think “national security” is the “most important consideration” when more people die from disease, poverty, crime, and war, each individually, than any foreign threat?
I congratulate you’re realization of the cultural necessity of abortion, but why exactly do you believe Guiliani “has balls”? I can think of a few reasons, but what are your’s?
When it comes to Romney, have you ever tried googling his name? Have you ever actually looked at what he did in what some debased conseravtives call “Mass-a-two-sticks”? Would you like to be FORCED to PURCHASE healthcare?
What exactly is your problem with McCain/Feingold? I have problems with it, but what are your’s? And what exactly is your problem with his stance on immigration? After all, McCain has the traditional “Reagan” stance on these issues. What’s the problem there?
JMJ
Considering what you missed of my original it seems fairly pointless to answer you…. but since you asked;
“What exactly is the hypocrisy of a rich man standing up for the poor? ”
None. And maybe it’s irrelevant to you, but that wasn’t my point.
“Wouldn’t the label of “hypocrisy” apply to a rich man who stands for the rich? Or would that be just “Republican?””
Assumes facts not in evidence, argumentative and sarcastic.
“Why would you think “national security” is the “most important consideration” when more people die from disease, poverty, crime, and war, each individually, than any foreign threat?”
Difficult to do anything about any of that if the country is destroyed.
“I congratulate you’re realization of the cultural necessity of abortion, ”
Gee I hate to dis a positive, but I didn’t say that either.
“…but why exactly do you believe Guiliani “has balls”? ”
I said why.
“When it comes to Romney, have you ever tried googling his name? Have you ever actually looked at what he did in what some debased conseravtives call “Mass-a-two-sticks”? Would you like to be FORCED to PURCHASE healthcare?”
Pointless question. Answered in the original. Argumentative uncalled for attack.
“What exactly is your problem with McCain/Feingold?” “And what exactly is your problem with his stance on immigration?”
Wow. Actual objective questions. I’d answer, but you based on recent history, you wouldn’t read it.
Fred is the man. He has great common sense, something that the left and our RINOs are totally devoid of. He believes in what the GOP USED to believe in. Furthermore, he’s actually MADE something of himself OUTSIDE of politics unlike McShame, Gun Grabber Guiliani, and RINO Mitt.
The pablum-pukers on the Left, especially Her Thighness Hellary, The Goreacle, The Breck Girl, Hanoi John Fonda-Kerry are all silver-spoon leftist-elitists and/or outright commies. Their idea of America doesn’t jive with the hard-working Americans in the Heartland. Their socialist ideals only resonate in hellholes such as San Fran, NYC, mASSachusettes, and other “gimme-gimme” inner-city areas.
Check my blog for Fred’s standing on gloBULL warming.
http://noliberalspin.townhall.com/Default.aspx
Jeez, Carole, you have got to be the most defensive poster I’ve ever read! Why so insecure?
JMJ
You can’t help yourself can you? Defensive? Insecure? Last time I was…let’s see…naive? Like to feel victimized?
Let me say it simply.
You like to recharacterize what people say here. I responded to your comments with reality. I guess you could say that redirecting my original thoughts to your mischaracterization is defending.
Were I insecure, I would have not insisted you deal with what I said, not what you thought I said.
So I will redirect once more. I was very clear about what I said. You asked questions/made comments/ranted about things that indicated you didn’t read it and/or redefined my point. Why should I say anything more to you? To continually repeat an activity hoping for a different result is the definition of insanity. I am not insane. Although….in light of your previous responses to me, one might argue for that since I responded to you at all.
LOLOL! OMG, j. I just read your 9/7 4:20 post…the second comment on this blog. I bet you thought my original was in response to you. Frankly, I skip what you write anymore after last time. How ironic that my post appeared to respond to yours. Oops.
Carole, just to let you know, Guilaini is a social liberal and WAY outside our Reagan roots. He is also anti second amendment and a gun grabber as well. I’ll pass on him.
Carole, I’m sorry you feel that way. Some people like political debate, some would rather just speak to people who agree with them about most everything. If you’re more the latter then I’ll leave you be.
JMJ
Yes, we do have four very good men to choose from. As opposed to the almost freaky choices on the left.
But unlike a lot of folks, I just cant seem to get excited yet.
Probably because it’s way too early. I’m actually pissed that this is even happening so early. The way it’s going the campaighn for 2012 is going to start in Feb 2009.
I do have one thing to appreciate in this whole fiasco. And that is that I can be glad with certainty that Ron Paul will not be our president.
All political points aside I will never forget his little hissy fit at this last debate.
That was scary. The guy is unhinged.
Gunny, the gun thing does concern me, and I’m watching on that. And maybe I’m wrong, but I do not worry too much about the social liberal thing. When I read what he says….it doesn’t make me alarmed. But again, this is my guy level pre-primary level. Trying to keep an open mind as much as possible at this point.
J, if that is your idea of political debate – changing what I say and attacking your mischaracterization – I really am not interested. As a teacher, I’m not effective unless I get where the kid is coming from, and take it from there. To turn it around as to demonize where he is or demean it, is as non-productive as it is soul destroying.
What I wish I could find is someone on the democratic/liberal side that would take the time to get where I am coming from and discuss it as if my ideas and beliefs are as important and valid as I consider theirs. Frankly, I don’t get that from you or many others. I have spent hours attempting to get where the other side is, but the minute I say what I think, things like what you did happen…and worse. Either that, or they prejudge that if I do believe the way I do, I’m a moron, so they don’t engage at all. So, really? No thanks, if you that’s what you are going to do.
Carole, the one thing I LOVE about Guiliani is that he HATES the UN. In fact, he once stated that if he could get rid of the UN building in NYC, he’d do it in a heartbeat.
Carole ?
Now you know why I dismissed this character.
Some people just like to argue as much as they are wrong.
Carole, there’s nothing wrong with the occasional snarky zinger. As a teacher (my wife’s a teacher, by the way) you should have thicker skin!
I’ll try to be more diplomatic.
JMJ
Carole,
Another reason to dislike Guiliani.
http://www.wesh.com/politics/14070066/detail.html
He is not against The Invasion of the Benefit Snatchers.
“Carole, there’s nothing wrong with the occasional snarky zinger.”
Not at all, if I know you and where you are coming from.
“As a teacher (my wife’s a teacher, by the way) you should have thicker skin!”
I do with my children. I love them, tough or otherwise. And I know that my sensitivity to them, and people in general, is an asset in my profession. I just don’t expect to have deal with adults as I do children. No offense meant.
“I’ll try to be more diplomatic.”
As will I.
Gunny, what is your take on that article you cited? I read the interview with Beck and it was confusing as to what G was really saying. I stopped when I read that he wants to close the border to illegal immigration, which addresses my main security issue with immigration. What did you think?
Oh, and yeah!! Me too on the UN, Gunny. ;->
Mickster!
Yes, it is difficult to feel really good about a candidate now…and it also seems as if we have started the pre-season game season a lot earlier than usual. Mostly the jury is still out for me….except with HRC.
LOL re your comment on Ron Paul!!! I don’t think he really was ever a serious contender, was he?
Gunny, I think Giuliani was mad at the UN diplomats for stiffing the city on parking fines and such. ;) But seriously, Giuliani is mad at the UN for not doing something it can’t do. It’s all moot. I like Edwards’ “CITO” idea. A sort of NATO for terrorism. Sounds like a good idea to me. Look it up.
Anyways…
Speaking as a realistic pragmatist, political assuasion aside, I have a theory about presidents and the “weight of the office” – Some presidents feel “the weight of the office” and some do not. I honestly do not believe that our current president feels the weight of the office of the president. I don’t think he’s really capable of it. I truly believe that he’s not a very intelligent person. For that reason, I don’t really blame him for his foibles. I do blame his cohorts, though. Their conflicted culpability for what has happened to America over the past some-odd years is palpably evident, hiding in plain sight, so to speak. Because of Bush’s lack of ability, he has been unable to impose his will, for whatever that’s worth, upon his administration. It’s a de facto administration by delegation, and the delegation is composed entirely of conflicted interests. From mining accidents to the war to the collapsing infrastructure to the impending recession, this administration has steered the country toward failures in the name of personal profit. And that’s why Bush has utterly failed America and will be remembered that way. It’s a tragedy. Some say Hoover’s story was tragic, but in a way Bush’s is more so – poor George never could have understood what he was dealt while Hoover could have.
I do think that a president Giuliani, or McCain, or Huckabee would feel the weight of the office and act relatively responsibly. Perhaps Romney as well. I do not believe any of that four would be foolish enough to stay the course of this current administration. They will say whatever they have to say to get elected, but I do believe that once in office they will act more on our behalf then just to be a puppet under the strings of the corporatocracy. Brownback , however, would not feel the weight of the office. He’s an idiot. Thompson? It’s hard to tell. What all this comes down to is the ability to make truly tough decisions, as opposed to “tough” decisions that are only tough on everyone but the “decider.”
Bush’s father was destroyed for breaking the “read my lips” promise, but most economists, and even myself, agree that the Bush I/Foley/Rostenkowsky budget deal was the main impetus of the budget balancing of the later 90’s. Clinton and Gingrich take the credit, but Bush I, Foley, and Ros deserve more of it. It’s all about balance of power and interests and a president who feels the weight of the office. Bush I’s own GOP turned on him for doing the right, responsible thing. Giuiliani was smart not to make any prognostigating promises.
So, that’s my take on this post.
JMJ
As far as Ron Paul goes, I cant help but be cynical when it comes to him. If there is any benefit to the race starting so early its that we get time to sift out the weirdos.
I dont want Ron Paul anywhere near the button.
Shouldnt we just start campaigning year round from now on ?
I mean what the hell ? Christmas shows up before Halloween these days.
Pretty soon we’ll see Christmas sales in March.
Are we that bored as a society that we have to keep moving everything forward to the point where it becomes a big blur ?
J? Are you serious? I agree with your initial theory about presidents feeling the weight of the office. And I was mentally nodding my head thinking Clinton didn’t….when you said that about ‘the current president.’.
It is mind boggling to realize that when you look at Bush you see a man ‘incapable’ of doing so, when I see the complete opposite. In fact, I see a man so serious about his responsibility to the office, that he doesn’t let transient things like polls affect him as others have; so respectful of the office that he has been graciousness itself to ex-presidents and first ladies that have vilified him in public…and for that same reason, he doesn’t answer the plethora of vitriol aimed at him by those afflicted with what others called ‘Bush derangement syndrome’.
How can two reasonably intelligent people look at the same person and see polar opposites in that person? I have to assume it comes from what we are predisposed to see, somehow. I read a bit of a book by Thomas Sowell that asks a similar question, only about the world view of those on the left and right. He came up with a very interesting theory that persons predisposed to see the world in one way end up on one end of the spectrum, while those another way, the other end. I am doing it no justice, and not owning or having read the entire book, I cannot go into enough detail to discuss it.
But that idea, and your diametrically opposed take on Bush, makes me really question just how real the reality we think we see is. Thought provoking.
Jersey,
How incredibly naive you are. NATO sucks. It always HAS sucked. Remember the Balkans? NATO could not even handle the problem in theie OWN BACKYARD. They had to dial 800-HELPUSA.
I’ve worked with NATO troops in Portugal, Belgium, and Netherlands and let me be the first to say it…they could not fight their way out of a thick fog.
LEFTward’s suggestion of a CITO made those of us IN the intel field LLAMF. You think that the wall between the CIA/FBI that Jamie Gorelick and Janet Reno erected was bad…
Carole, you said, “How can two reasonably intelligent people look at the same person and see polar opposites in that person?” Well, look at it this way: Bush was a failure in the private sector, a no-show in the service, a mediocre figure-head in the MLB, a governor in a state with a about the weakest exectutive in the nation, had to resort to very, very sleazy campaign tactics to get elected (Ann Richarson a “lesbian”? John McCain “unAmerican”? etc), has a long record of gaffes, mistatements, mispronouncements and misunderstandings, had a mediocre acedemic career,and so on. I see a man who thinks he’s serious, perhaps, but not someone who really knows what serious is. You make a fair point – we don’t really know the man. But we do know a lot about him. From everything I’ve read, heard, and seen, he does not impress me in the least. He never did. And I’ve been following his antics since the 80’s. I’m a pretty fair person and a very good judge of character. I don’t agree with William Buckley Jr very much, but he’s obviously a brilliant man. Even if I disagree with someone, I can still peg them down pretty well.
Gunny, oh God no, now NATO sucks? What exactly doesn’t suck to you? Is there anything in this world that doesn’t suck? Is it that the only thing that doesn’t suck is flag-waving, God-fearing conservative Americans from Flyover Jesusland?
Okay, I’ll bite. What is it about NATO that you don’t like? Is it just the seemingly adolescent assertion that you believe that they’re wimps? Because if that’s it, then I’m not biting after all.
JMJ
Jersey,
Name one operation that NATO has handled well. I used them as an example in one of my papers in my MA program for Joint Operations. I could find nothing that they have done well. Sorry, but that is the facts.
Hmm, you really seem to hate religion. Is that the tolerant liberal in you coming out?
To tolerate intolerance, Gunny, is to endorse it. I do not endorse the clanism of religion. I do not endorse the irrationality of faith. I wish religion would disappear from the face of the Earth – not the religious people, mind you, just the religion itself. But wishing it away won’t do much, so I do always offer to engage religious people to try to disuade them from the error of their ways.
NATO? Well, it seems to have accomplished it’s mission just by existing – Peace. It’s just a treaty organization with a specific focus on keeping the peace in Europe, Gunny. What? Should it be doing something else that I don’t know?
JMJ