The other night when I was listening to the Republican debate and the candidates were asked about Thompson, I thought Giuliani was changing the subject at the end of his response, switching from talking about Thompson to taking a shot at the Democrats:
I like Fred a lot. I think Fred is a really, really good man. I think he’s done a pretty good job of playing my part on "Law & Order." (Laughter.) I personally prefer the real thing, and -- but I think Fred will add something to this race. But I think this is a nomination you have to earn, though.He wasn't changing the subject. He was saying: The Democrats with a chance (not Richardson) are all Senators. So we shouldn't put up a Senator against a Senator. Preserve the ability to attack the opponent because she (or he) has only been a Senator.
Nobody’s going to give it to you; nobody’s going to glance it to you; nobody’s going to crown you.You’ve got to go out there, like these gentlemen have done, and I’ve done. You’ve got to -- you’ve got to meet people in Iowa and New Hampshire and all over the country. You’ve got to work hard for this.
And finally I think it’s going to come down to experience. This is not a time that the United States should be electing someone who’s going to get on-the-job training. You need people with executive experience.
And my real concern is you have three leading Democratic candidates, none of which have ever run a city, a state or a business. (Cheers, applause.) And this is not -- this is -- America’s at war. America’s got some big problems. It’s not the time for on-the-job training as an executive.
Posts
115 comments:
Only Warren Harding and John Kennedy were elected president while serving in the Senate. Both died in office.
I'm sure he was a perfectly fine Senator for Tennesseeans. That means he can belong to a pack, and that he likely has an enormous sense of entitlement.
I don't often agree with Rudy, but I'm so anti-Senator when it comes to Presidential candidates that I have to make an exception.
At least he's not a peanut farmer.
I honestly don't track with the 'experience' thing. Executive experience? Who has experience facing down folks like the North Koreans over nuclear weapons?
The Presidency is always on the job training. It's a job unlike any other in the world. Executive experience is nice but we've found that even those with that experience can be pretty bad presidents.
I'd rather have a president who is very, very good about learning and listening and making decisions. Who has a firm ability to quickly understand brand new things and make informed quick decisions about them.
We're basically electing the decider in chief, who has to face issues that might be brand new.
Just doing stuff before might help, but it might not. Ambition can get someone a lot of executive experience, with good decision making a lesser demand.
Anyhow, if we were going by experience only there's one man who stands out above the rest in that regard. The current vice-president. I suspect most folks on either side don't think that highly of just experience.
Good point, Meade. And Thompson isn't a hand-wringing micro-manager, as was Carter.
Fred’s prepared to lead. Among his foreign policy credits are Barbarians at the Gate, Looking for Comedy in the Muslim World, and The Hunt for Red October.
Domestic: Law & Order, Feds, Wiseguy, Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee.
There's nothing foreign about Barbarians at the Gate, you moron.
So applying that line of thinking...we should put a "mayor" up against a Senator? :)
Wade Garrett, I'm not the literal one here. Get the gist, lighten up, be nice.
(Hint- it was just about the t-i-t-l-e-s.)
But Pete, it surely can't be gainsaid that the Mayor of New York is sui generis.
Paddy, I think it's true that the Presidency is always going to involve on-the-job training. Still: if you're the Chief Executive of IBM and you're hired to be the Chief Executive of Starbucks, no one expects you to arrive on the job with experience in running a large coffee company, and no one expects you not to have a learning curve, but by the same token, it's kind of assumed that you know how to be a chief executive of a large organization.
Even if the substantive policy areas within the President's competency are areas where it's hard to have experience -- in the early Republic, those with military or foreign policy experience such as secretaries of state and diplomats were preferred for the Presidency, but we don't live in those times anymore, alas -- surely, though, the vital skillset of heading a vast organization - decisionmaking processes, delegation, etc. - is a skillset that executive experience more than legislative experience will impart. The less has to be learned on the fly, the better, surely?
Simon, I think you're right. That's why I look at governor's closely for the most part. Decisive people, I think, go for jobs that involve decision making. It takes a certain kind of leader to stand alone and make a decision and a certain kind of leader who likes leading committee meetings.
But, I also voted for Arnold as governor of California, who had no political experience executive or otherwise and he's been a very good governor, especially given California's extreme partisan battles over the last ten years. He's fought and he's compromised when he's lost.
What he had was good decision making through his life, which propelled an obscure Austrian to the height of Global popularity. He was a CEO of his own life, and made it pretty far.
Wade: you really need some help with that anger thing you got going on. Get a grip.
"He was a CEO of his own life" sounds like something Zig Ziglar would say! LOL.
I agree. Fred T. is an excellent candidate. I tend agree more with Fred's positions than Rudy.
However, Rudy is more of a genuine leader, and that is what we need as president. Rudy will win the nomination despite Rudy's more socially liberal positions. The nugget Rudy gives to social conservatives is the promise to appoint judges like Roberts and Alito. When Rudy gets elected, his appointments will hopefully take the court out of the social debate and put it back into the state legislatures where it belongs.
It would be wise, however, for Rudy to pick a vice presidential candidate who has more conservative credentials. Maybe, Fred is the one. However, there are better choices. Perhaps Mike Huckabee.
Rudy is the nightmare pick for Democrats, becase neither Clinton or Obama will be competitive in any of the southern states, while Rudy will be competitive in many of the northern states, including California.
The best person the Dems have to run against Rudy would be Edwards.
What Sloan said.
Sloan:
"The best person the Dems have to run against Rudy would be Edwards"
Edwards can't even win his home state, let alone any other southern states.
I'm a leaner for Rudy so I'd to see Edwards get the Dem nod.
"He was a CEO of his own life" sounds like something Zig Ziglar would say! LOL.
That's it! I'm going to start writing leadership and life skills books!
Fred Thompson is an ex-Senator. My theory is that it's sitting Senators that are generally unelectable. This is especially true in Thompson's case because he's been so much more than merely a Senator.
Edwards can't even win his home state, let alone any other southern states.
I agree that Edwards is a total lightweight. However, Edwards does not have the negatives that Hillary has. You may find that a lot of people will come out to vote specifically to vote against Hillary even though they really don't like Rudy that much either. However, if Edwards is running, they may not vote at all. People just don't hate Edwards like they hate Hillary. This makes Edwards competitive in places like Virginia and Florida.
Obama will never win a primary at this stage. He is too young and inexperienced to be the first black President. Obama should go back and get elected as Governor of Illinois and serve as a moderate democrat there for two terms. If that happens (and he is a successful governor) there will be a future President Obama.
Wow.
Anyway, Rudy’s interesting and fairly viable, but I don’t see America electing him President because of his wacky factor. Despite conservatives despising her, Hillary appears steadier (steadily wrong, imo) and more conventional to other voters, she's been in the WH and Bill comes with her (that didn't sound right), and she offers them a feel-good for electing the first female Prez (and maybe African-American VP). So, the electorate could go for a “change” in the WH (with another Clinton) from the Repubs that “looks” responsible, if Rudy’s the nominee.
A Thompson/ Guiliani ticket might stand a good chance against Clinton/Obama, in a match up between a North-South and conservative to socially centrist/ liberal candidacy and a North-Midwest and all the way Progressive one. What I worry about is a Clinton/Clark ticket. Wes could help pull in the south and give Hill the mil/ foreign policy cred she needs.
I worry about is a Clinton/Clark ticket. Wes could help pull in the south and give Hill the mil/ foreign policy cred she needs.
Hillary doesn't need anyone with military credentials. She needs someone from the south to make her competitive in southern states. I just don't see it happening. Hillary has too many negatives.
Hillary will not win a single southern state. Her only hope is to win all the states that Kerry won, plus Ohio.
Democrat partisan hit pieces concocted to besmirch Rudy's exemplary and universally acclaimed performance as "America's Mayor" are supposed to be persuasive to exactly who?
Sloan, you may be right, but I'm not so convinced of her total defeat here in the South where I live. She has her husband to campaign for her and many people (ugh) still like that boy.
Rudy has some character negatives, too, and at the top of a ticket may not trounce the lady who claims both North and South as her own with varying accent, depending on the audience.
Who was the last president to come from the North or East?
Kennedy?
Democrat partisan hit pieces concocted to besmirch Rudy's exemplary and universally acclaimed performance as
If there are hit pieces, the acclaim cannot be universal.
This might help:
Applying a clear or black polish to the [image] adds definition and a deep luster.
Good grooming is essential in keeping your [candidate's] coat in top condition, but whether you want to dazzle the [voters] with your [candidate's] horse’s shimmering coat or you just want your [candidate] to shine above his [campaign] trail mates, there can be salvation in a bottle. Any wise [political advisor] armed with a bottle or two of shine can turn a "bad hair day" into a day with "not a hair out of place."
It's just plain smart to occasionally look outside one's field of expertise for advice.
Sloan: "The nugget Rudy gives to social conservatives is the promise to appoint judges like Roberts and Alito."
But that may not even be a reasonable expectation given that most are predicting Democrats to retain control and gain several seats in the Senate in 2008.
Democrat partisan hit pieces concocted to besmirch Rudy's exemplary and universally acclaimed performance as "America's Mayor" are supposed to be persuasive to exactly who?
I don't find partisan pieces persuasive. But Megan McArdle, as one example, is not a Democratic partisan.
It's not so much "luster" that Fred lacks. It's an answer to the question that stymied Teddy 27 years ago: why do you want to be president, and why should I vote for you? It's all well and good to have "policy positions" -- who doesn't these days? -- but nothing about Fred's candidacy suggests taht there is some burning purpose that compells him to seek the office. He certainly doesn't communicate any sense of urgency about anything; just the opposite. For Rudy and McCain, and even Romney, those questions don't come up. Rudy wants to lead us all to a safer place in a dangerous world, and is determined to focus on what matters and avoid what doesn't (culture warriors, beware); McCain wants to do that too, and is equally impatient with distractions (he sees them a bit differently, though); and Romney wants to bring rational management to bear on an irrational process. Each is convinced that he's the best guy to accomplish that end; and all three of them, in their way, are taking aim at "partisan gridlock" as the essential domestic problem we have to get beyond. (At this stage, whether that's just politicians' happy-talk doesn't really matter.) But Fred? Beats me. He needs to answer that question, and fast.
I agree with Ann's point about Rudy's contrasting himself with Senators generally. I think people see the legislature as the natural home of bickering pols and backroom deals; the popular image of a senator adds bloviating ego-maniacal windbag to the mix. After a while, those habits get ingrained. Not exactly anyone's idea of a strong leader for tough times. Whatever else people may say about him, no one thinks of Rudy in those terms. I suspect he will try to keep it that way.
Zeb: "Rudy's exemplary and universally acclaimed performance as "America's Mayor""
Say what you will of Rudy's job performance, but "universally acclaimed" is a pretty indefensible claim to make.
Executive experience is entirely secondary to policy positions. Why would you want to elect someone who's fantastic at implementing things you don't like?
If Rudy's argument against Senators extends to Thompson, it's a good strategy. We keep seeing the "Thompson is Reagan" image bandied about, but without much substance. Why? Both were actors? Reagan had more executive experience than Thompson, and a longer history of political activity. I don't see Thompson picking up the role of The Great Communicator, either.
Joseph: Are you implying that a Democratically controlled Senate would vote down a candidate of the quality of Alito and Roberts because of purely idealogical reasons?
But that may not even be a reasonable expectation given that most are predicting Democrats to retain control and gain several seats in the Senate in 2008.
True, but Rudy should fight for them. Not all the Democrats are liberal democrats. Do you think James Webb or the Nelsons, or any senator from North Dakota or Montana is going to vote down a John Roberts. No way. Despite the democrats being in power, there is still a "conservative" majority in Congress.
I'm just saying social conservatives should not take too much comfort in the prospect of a President Giuliani getting conservatives on the bench if that's the "nugget" Sloan says they get from his candidacy. The whole process of a Republican president's nomination of judges will be a lot different in 2009 than it was in 2005 with Democratic leadership and control in the Senate (and Senate Judiciary Committee) and I wouldn't count on a President Giuliani nominating judges as conservative as Alito or Roberts.
(And I know Sloan's point would be that Giuliani should nominate judges that would be "conservative" in that they would decline to address certain social issues rather than impose their socially conservative viewpoint, but, for better or worse, the general public, including social conservatives, is still going to evaluate judicial nominees by their seeming sensitivity to issues like abortion and gay rights.)
I respect the "Ruth Bader Ginsburg" principle and if the nominee is otherwise qualified, Harvard, Yale, Stanford :), then they should get voted in. But I'm afraid litmus tests will fly in all directions.
Simon says:
"...the vital skillset of heading a vast organization - decisionmaking processes, delegation, etc. - is a skillset that executive experience more than legislative experience will impart."
But is this really true? Does a U.S. senator really lack in decision-making and delegation experience? It's not as if they accidentally sat in a senator's chair and were appointed in a zany mix-up. Both the campaign and then the running of the office are not, I imagine, small-time operations. Unless there are some more exclusively "executive" abilities in that skill set, this is just the conclusion of your argument restated as a premise.
Anybody even entertaining a vote for "Rudy" should watch this video produced by the Former Emergency Director, on Giuliani's 9/11 Record:
There's even an interview with Chris Wallace on Fox of all networks, where Rudy is caught lying his nuts off.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/09/06/fmr-emergency-director-on_n_63329.html
Joseph Hovsep:
Say what you will of Rudy's job performance, but "universally acclaimed" is a pretty indefensible claim to make.
I dunno. Maybe "universally" is a skosh over-the-top, but, hey, what with the Queen of England reaching across the Atlantic and in effect knighting him for his job performance and all, it is at the very least a defensible claim to make.
Zeb Quinn said..."Democrat partisan hit pieces concocted to besmirch Rudy's exemplary and universally acclaimed performance as "America's Mayor" are supposed to be persuasive to exactly who?"
You've got to be kidding. You can google Rudy right now and get article that are very critical of him from both sides of the aisle.
Watch the video I posted earlier for a good look at Rudy and how he's been conning America since 9/11. (And Chris Wallace isn't exactly what I would call someone who handles "Democrat partisan hit pieces."
zeb,
You're voting for who the Queen of England likes?
Maybe you should just vote "Oprah."
I, for one, think the conventional wisdom that has developed in geeky political circles that Senators don't make good Presidents is WAY overstated.
No job, including legislator, CEO of big company, governor of a big state, mayor of a big city or First Lady really prepares a person for the Presidency of the United States. Each has its advantages and disadvantages, but technical job history is only a small part of a complicated package we look for in a President.
The fact that only two sitting Senators have been elected President is not much more meaningful to me than the fact that only one Roman Catholic has ever been elected President. Its partly accident, and partly the result of historical factors that don't necessarily resonate as strongly today. In fact, I'd put some money on the next President having some Senatorial experience.
a defensible claim
Hardly. A more defensible claim would be that Rudy has universally benefited from good PR for his behavior. The good PR may or may not be justified.
... well Senatorial experience or Catholic experience.
Well, if you think a Senator would be a problem, here's how our current ex-Governor President's day went yesterday...not that this is unusual:
1. His speech was delayed so they could fill empty seats.
2. He called "APEC" "OPEC."
3. He called the Australian Troops Austrian Troops.
4. He had a testy exchange with
the South Korean President
5. And then...and this is the best of all...he goes out the wrong exit.
If this wasn't true...it would be funny.
1. Aussie politics are sliding leftward
2. Some say "Auntie" and others "Ontie"
3. That's how we Texans say it in drawl when we're jetlagged and have had some bad sushi over the Pacific
4. He deserved it
5. All the world's a stage and players try to have their showman exits and entrances cued by capable stage-hands. But so what if not?
People sure seem to be worried about Fred getting the nod . . . that says a lot, don't you think?
Also, I know the "senator" thing is a big deal with people who follow politics, but the average person doesn't care if the guy or gal was a senator or governor - they are all politicians.
Fred has a charisma that perhaps only Rudy can challenge.
If you have money to bet I would go with Fred.
catherine,
Thanks for the G.W. defense.
It's getting kind of old, though...
nsc,
Who's "worried" about Fred?
I heard a report today saying he's not garnering the interest nor the money he thought he would.
Maybe a new series is in the offering...?
Nice response Catherine. I am surprised you haven't been called a name yet.
Oh I would've had I used my real pretend name :)
What Fred should do is.... when he is on the platform he should just turn to his wife...stick his head in there and go "Brewwwskkkki" and when he pulls out his face will be ruddy and healthy and have all the luster you could ever want...he would get my vote....no problem.
The criticism of Rudy is endless. After all, the NY Times spent 8 years hating him. Through all that he managed to turn NYC from a crap farm back into a world class city.
There are endless attacks against Rudy to try and say he did nothing on 9-11. But the fact is, the NY response to 9-11 was handled very well. That is undeniable. Rudy said and did all the right things. In a chotic world, things like that don't happen from luck, they happen from competent leadership.
Just as people bash Bush to no end for all his failings and mistakes, they should take comfort in the success that Al Qaeda has failed to attack us again in the U.S. Bush may lose some battles here and there, but he is winning the big ones. That is what we want.
It's funny, because for all the "apparent" hatred in the world for Bush and America, peoples are electing leaders who support for Bush and the U.S. For example, in Australia, Mexico, UK, Canada, Germany, and now even France, the people have elected leaders who lean Bush's way. Why is that?
And my real concern is you have three leading Democratic candidates, none of which have ever run a city, a state or a business.
And that has proven to be the concern of the American voter thoughout history.
No one is saying that a Senator is unelectable or will ultimately prove incompetent as President; it's simply a matter of who do you hire - who is more qualified in executive experience?
Our last President who was a Senator - Lyndon Johnson - was qualified from being Vice President. But the very qualities that made him the most effective Senator in decades were the very qualities that doomed his Presidency.
After Johnson,
Nixon - was anyone ever more qualified?
Ford - legislator, qualified by virtue of being a former coach (yep, even coach is more qualifying than Senator),and VP.
Carter - Governor
Reagan - Governor
Bush - Business Owner, Director of CIA, VP
Clinton - Governor
Bush - Governor
Disagree all you want about the quality of the individual administrations, but the fact remains: While much of being President of the US is on-the-job training, the executive part - a successful track record of managing people and solving problems - shouldn't have to be.
Whenever possible, you want someone who can hit the ground running. And Senators, by virtue of the temperament that got them into the Senate in the first place, are way down the list in that category.
Do you take your car to a new mechanic who's never worked on one before but sure has a nice set of books about cars?
Me, I'd rather have the Maytag repairman look at it - at least he has the basic experience to know where to start looking.
Hey, that gives me an idea for a commercial . . .
While I am going to try to make a trivial point here, I suspect either Rudy or Fred will be more palatable to listen to than would be Hillary. They are simply better communicators, and even at the very basic level of speech, sound better than Hillary. While I would like to believe issues matter, I suspect it is the atomospherics that sway more voters than do issues. I guess I have crossed the line into excessive cynicism.
Executive experience? Who has experience facing down folks like the North Koreans over nuclear weapons?
Condi Rice, Colin Powell, and quite a few people in the State Department, for starters.
The President does a lot more than "face people down", though. He is the head of the executive branch of our government; executive experience is obviously a plus.
b says: "Whenever possible, you want someone who can hit the ground running."
And we end up with a pud on his bicycle.
Roger: You're most concerned with who you want to listen to??
That's a rather strange way to look at who you want as President. (Maybe we should look for a radio announcer.)
Yes, Ann, clearly CNN has it in for Fred Thompson.
Once again, the anti-bellwether LOS lets me know I am right. Many thanks.
1. In defense of Arnold, he was no "green guy" with no executive experience when he became governor. For 30 years, Arnold ran businesses that made him almost as much as his "acting" career. Sports products, a Real Estate investment Co, his film companies. He also had leadership experience in heavy organizational involvement and executive direction even after he retired in the bodybuilding industry. Plus the President's Council on Physical Fitness, serving as a Goodwill Ambassador, the Special Olympics.
This is no dummy. Arnold was far more than a retired iron pumper and bad actor before he becaome governor.
2. Since Harding, 74 Senators and House members have tried running for President. Only JFK got in, and mostly by claiming he was a bigger hawk than Ike or Nixon. 74 misses. Odds of hitting a winner are higher in Lotto than in the latest Senator or House member with "high media recognition numbers and a love of hearing their own slick talk" ever making it to President.
That suggests that voters understand it is hard to see lifetime legislators with no other experience, becoming executives running a nation.
That is not to say that a member of Congress with significant executive experience like Evan Bayh or Mark Warner if he gets into the Senate, or a younger Lautenberg or Corzine type (successful self-made execs before entering Congress) are disqualified from that past experience by stepping up on Capital Hill....But I think voters saw all the limitations of a Lifetime Senator in John Kerry.
3. It is also worth noting that no spouse of a CEO or general is deemed to be qualified to step into their spouse's shoes by virtue of hanging around the proximity of the executive all those years, smiling at functions, and listening to pillowtalk... (Unless the guy is a CEO-Owner, croaks, and leaves the biz to the wife).
Otherwise, it doesn't happen.
Yeah, I'm talking about you, Hillary, and you Rudy, saying your wife will advise you on Presidential decisions regularly!
In politics, and in the media, sposal privilege? Yes. Nepotism is more accepted in those fields....What is the harm of putting a dead Senator's spouse in to serve out their term? No biggie. You agree to go to CBS as long as Maury Povich (Mr. Connie CHung) gets a plum show? Won't affect the CBS bottom line....
Another example of why a Senator-without-executive-experience should not be President (doesn't have a real world clue):
John Edwards believes that Universal Health Care should require "mandatory preventive" care, and that when someone has even the smallest tendency towards a disease, they should be "closely monitored".
Creepy. Playing that sound bite of Edwards over and over will ensure that he is never elected.
Luckoldson;
Not a drop of ink on substance. You are incapable of policy arguments. Hillary Clinton has a terrible voice but I don't need to be critical of unimportant superficial attributes, I can on policy. She voted our troops into battle for politics and for politics has removed her support; our troops deserve better.
Secondly; I question your patriotism. How dare you sit back and make light of a two bit leader of a country where 34,000 Americans died to keep his country free. For him to show such disrespect to the President of the United States is unacceptable.
fritz says: "Not a drop of ink on substance. You are incapable of policy arguments. Hillary Clinton has a terrible voice..."
Oh, sorry...I forgot about the "voice" thing having something to do with electing our President.
As for "policy" issues...you voted for the idiot in there right now, didn't you? And look how things have worked out for America...
And when did I "make light of a two bit leader of a country where 34,000 Americans died to keep his country free"...??
Low on meds?
French President Charles de Gaulle prodded President Johnson when US troops would be out of France; to which Johnson replied, "Does that include the ones buried there."
Where are those Democrats of yesterday that loved their country more than their political affiliation?
The dem partisans are truly quaking in their Birkenstocks at the prospect of Guiliani winning the repub nomination. It's easy to see why. As a repub he's a cinch to clean their clocks in the south. He may not be the south's favorite candidate, but the south will vote for him in a New York nanosecond over whatever grifter du jour it is that the dems finally end up trying to palm off on us. But that's not all. There's more. Guiliani could also easily clean their clocks in the northeast, and on the west too. In other words, the dems could lose everywhere to Guiliani. Guiliani appeals to voters across the board everywhere. That's why they're scared of him. That's why they're working overtime to slander his record. They gotta stop him. Other than it being a crying shame that that they put their party loyalty ahead of doing the right thing, who can blame them? They're absolutely right. He's a winner.
In fact I think a Guiliani-Thompson ticket would in fact run the table, 50-0.
Pogo said..."Once again, the anti-bellwether LOS lets me know I am right."
When have I ever intimated you weren't far to the right?
Now, if we could only get you to actually READ something relevant to the world and politics...instead of repeating the standard wingnut talking points anybody can hear from Sean, Rush, Michael, Ann and good ol' Billy-Boy.
THAT would be a real change of pace.
I do love harassing the right wing nuts you can find here every day...especially when they spend the whole day whining about Hillary and touting Fred or Rudy as our next great white hope...
And all the while you can listen to reports relating to:
1. Osama Bin Laden telling us to go fuck ourselves...remember him?
2. The President saying we're "kicking ass" in Iraq...yeah, right.
3. An Air Force plane flying cross country with live nukes aboard...geee, what could possibly go wrong?
4. 1,800 dead Iraqi civilians just last month...and about 1,600 the month before...all while the "surge" is "working?"
5. 80 dead American soldiers just last month...with another 70 the previous month...3,800 overall.
6. The job market crumbling...the stock market plunging...
Do any of you ever follow the actual news of the day? Is Rush your ONLY source of information?
Zeb,
Here's the difference between you and us, we aren't quacking in our boots about Rudy because of general election dynamics, we are quacking at the notion of another arrogant, off-the-cuff, slightly unhinged character becoming President of the United States and bringing an even more disastrous term to this country than the last.
The people who know Rudy best (New Yorkers) don't think that he should be President and many of them voted for him and aren't particularly Clinton fans. I think that Romney is the most craven politician that I've ever seen and that McCain's lost it a little bit, but I'd feel way more confident in either of them running this country than Rudy putting my hope for a Democrat in the White House aside.
Zeb Quinn said..."The dem partisans are truly quaking in their Birkenstocks at the prospect of Guiliani winning the repub nomination."
Rudy's lies will bury him.
Watch this video about Rudy and tell me you'd vote for him:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/09/06/fmr-emergency-director-on_n_63329.html
Now, if we could only get you to actually READ something relevant to the world and politics
You mean like Daily Kos?
I guess every blog has its POS, um LOS.
we are quacking at the notion of another arrogant, off-the-cuff, slightly unhinged character becoming President of the United States and bringing an even more disastrous term to this country than the last.
I agree completely -- the thought of Hillary winning the Presidency worries me, too.
Although on second thought that might not have been the arrogant and slightly unhinged person you were talking about.
Sloan,
I've never read the kos in my life.
I read newspapers, periodicals and books, with stops at Huffington and a few right wing sights for reference purposes.
Based on your postings, I assume you bunk with Sean Hannity.
Pogo,
I forgot to ask: Where's your girlfriend, Fen-Fen?
You break up?
*I hope Craig didn't have anything to do with it.
Invisible Man said...
"The people who know Rudy best (New Yorkers) don't think that he should be President and many of them voted for him and aren't particularly Clinton fans."
When was the last time that a majority of New Yorkers voted for the Republican ticket, regardless of who was on it?
Simon,
NY won't vote for Rudy.
They know he's a lying sack of shit.
Hillary's done a much better job as Senator than anyone imagined and that will carry the state.
I can't believe how many people worship Rudy and fawn over Fred.
Then again...look who's President right now.
Megan MacArdle is anti-Giuliani on the same grounds that any libertarian-leaning person would be. Can't imagine she thinks much of Edwards and Hillary either.
If there's anything to the Senator thing, the Dems should nominate Richardson and the Reps should nominate Romney. That--I'd probably stay home for that election.
Zeb, you are revealing yourself as pretty delusional. Even though I don't personally like Giuliani, even among the GOP contenders, I can see his attraction and I understand why he would probably be the most formidable challenger for whomever the Democrats nominate. But c'mon now. The guy was not well liked by his own constituents. The Queen of England's praise notwithstanding, he is abrasive, has a scandalous personal life, and is widely distrusted among both social conservatives and libertarians. Those are facts. He may be the best the GOP has to offer this time around, but he's hardly going to sweep the Electoral College. Its hard for me to picture him even winning New York.
LOS,
What is a right wing sight?
Funny that not long ago you were complaining about Bush not communicating well and not speaking well. Now you are telling us, after you have read all your MSM Dem policy points, that communicating is not important at all. Guess you are just like the rest of your party, inconsistent and saying whatever you think will sell right now whether you believe it or not.
Do you have ANY beliefs at all? Any ideas that you hold sacred? Or do you just think that being snarky makes you intelligent. Got news for you - and this not put out by the biased media - it doesn't.
but nothing about Fred's candidacy suggests taht there is some burning purpose that compells him to seek the office
The man has two little children and sees that this country is going to Hell in a handbasket. I agree. We are in dire straits in the United States and in danger of losing our country. His burning purpose is to see that his children have a country to grow up in....period. He said that it isn't often that someone is given the chance to make a difference.
Quote: "I feel deeply that I am doing it for the right reasons. I love my country and I am concerned about its future."
I don't want a candidate who has a "burning purpose" to be President, like Kerry who planned and schemed from his youth to be President. I would rather have a person like Washington or Fred Thompsom who has had the job thrust upon him by the persuasions of others.
Nice to see Osama adopting or the Democrat platform for '08.
And hell, no Elvis Costello fans here at all??
"You lack lust,
you're so lackluster.
Is that all the strength
you can muster?"
(cf "Possession").
Luckyoldson said...
"Simon, NY won't vote for Rudy. They know he's a lying sack of shit."
No, LOS, New York City won't vote for him because he'll be on the Republican ticket, and New York City won't be voting for the Republican ticket, period. That's the point I was making. If it's Rudy, they'll vote dem, if it's Fred, they'll vote dem, and if it's the ghost of General damned Eisenhower they'll vote dem. It'd be like announcing that San Francisco won't vote for Fred Thompson - true, but irrelevant.
The ghost of Eisenhower?
I'll bet NYC might vote for him. No one would want to get on the bad side of the ghost of Dwight Eisenhower.
Well, as long as the ghost of Nixon wasn't running as VP. Would that be Constitutional anyhow?
Makes me nervous to think about.
dick said..."LOS, What is a right wing sight?"
Rush, Michelle, Bill, Sean, Weekly STandard, Ace of Spades...and of course a few others...
2 or 3
7 Deadly Sins
Aaron's Rantblog
Adeimantus
Alarming News
Aldaynet
All Things Jennifer (Journal)
Alphabet City
Alpaca Burger/New Counterculture
Ambient Irony
American Barbarian
American Digest
Amish Tech Support
The Anchoress
Andunie
Anticipatory Retalliation
Antidisestabilshmentarian
Archaeoblog (Archaeology)
Ari Goes Down (Journal)
Armies of Liberation
ASV/A Small Victory
Attu Sees All
Bad Stated of Gruntledness
Bastard Sword
Balloon-Juice
The Baron
The Bastidge
Beautiful Atrocities
A Beleaguered Conservative in Nor Cal
Belmont Club
Besmirched
Betsy's Page
Between the Coasts
Bill from INDC
Binza
The Bitch Girls
BitHeads
BizzyBlog
Blackfive, Paratrooper of Love
The Black Republican
Tim Blair
Blaster's Blog
Blithering Bunny
Blogs For Bush
Blonde Sagacity
Bluemerle
Blue State Conservatives
The Real Boston Irish, Like A Viking
Breakdown Lane
Burn Rate
Cake or Death?
California Conservative
Cartago Delenda Est
Cavalry Charge
A Certain Slant of Light
Charmaine Yoest
Chapomatic
Christina in London (Journal)
Chicago Boyz
The Cliffs of Insanity
Classical Values
Cold Fury
The Colossus Blog
The Corndog Blog
College Pundit
Confederate Yankee
The Country Store
Cowboy Blob
Cox & Forkum (cartoons)
Cranial Cavity
Cranky Neocon
Critical Mastiff
Croooow Blog
Cynical Nation
Da Goddess
Daily Lunch
Daily Pundit
The Daily Recycler (Vidblog)*
Daleks Weblog
Daly Thoughts
Ilyka Damen
Damn the Man
Dave Munger
Dave's Not Here
Dawn Eden
Day by Day (Cartoon)
DefenseTech
Demure Thoughts
Steven den Beste/USS Clueless
Desert Cat's Paradise
Digger's Realm
Digital Brownshirt
Doc Peabody
Don Luskin/Conspiracy
Don Sequitors (Pop Culture)
The Dorian Davis Republican Spectacular
Drake's Drum
Dr. Sanity
Dummocrats.com
E-Claire
The Edge of England's Sword
EduWonk
Emily Starr (Journal/Web-Design)
Emuse
Enjoy Every Sandwich
Enter Stage Right
Eternity Road
Ether House
Dean Esmay
Fish or Man
Fatass the Conqueror
The Fat Guy
(Musings of a) Fat Kid
Feisty Republican Whore
File It Under
Fine? Why Fine?
FloridaCracker
The Flying Space Monkey
Football Fans For Truth and Beyond
The Foggiest Idea
Frinklin Speaks (Baseball)
From Left to Right
Jane Galt/AI
Garfield Ridge
Geek Empire
Geek Soapbox
George Gaskell
The Gleeful Extremist
Ghost of a Flea
GOP Vixen
The Grand Vizier
Greg Gutfeld
Grim's Hall
Hell in a Handbasket
Victor Davis Hanson
Head's Bunker (Guns)
Heard Here
Hugh Hewitt
Andrew Hofer
The Hole Card
Horrors of an Easily Distracted Mind
The House of Payne
The Hundred Percenter
I Love Jet Noise/Joatmoaf
IMAO
Incite
Inoperable Terran
Instapundit
InstaPunk
In the Hat
Iowahawk
Iraq the Model
Iraq Now
Is This Blog On?
It'z News to Me
JamieR (Classics)
JihadWatch
Joust the Facts
JunkYardBlog
Just One Minute
Kadnine
Kausfiles
KelliPundit
Ken Wheaton/As I Please
Kerry Spot @ NRO
Kesher Talk
Kin's Kouch
Kikuchiryo News
Kronology
Last Chance Cafe
Least Loved Bedtime Stories
Left and Right
Le Sabot Post-Moderne
Lesbien C'est Moi (reasonable liberal)
Letters From Desolation Row (JackM.) Lifelike Pundits
Lileks/The Bleat
Little Green Footballs
The Llama Butchers
Michelle Malkin
Machias Privateer
Marcland (now Hubs and Spokes)
Margi Lowry (was: Miss Apropos)
Matt Howell/Nerf-Coated World
Ryne McClaren McCullough/Stingray
Mean Mr. Mustard
Memento Moron
Memeorandum (Metablog)
Metallicity (Metal)
Miss Apropos Mind of Mog
More Eclipse Ramblings
My Pet Jawa
My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
Newmanisms
The New Partisan
The New Vintage
Nickie Goomba
No Easy Answers
No Pundit Intended
Not a Shrinking Violet
Note-It Posts
Not So Much People
Terry Notus
Now You Know
Number 2 Pencil
NYC Smurfette (Journal)
Ocean Guy
Of the Mind
Oh, That Liberal Media
Oliver Kamm
Andrew Olmstead
On The Third Hand
One Man's Opinion
Outside the Beltway
Partisan Pundit
Patterico's Pontifications
Patriots for Bush
Peppermint Patty
The Perfect World (Discussion Forum)
The People's Cube
Petitedov (Journal)
Pink Flamingo Bar & Grill
Pirate Pundit
Polar Opposite Politics
PoliPundit
The Politburo Diktat
The Political Teen
Powerline
PowerProf
Prestopundit
The Primary Main Objective
Professor Chaos
Protein Wisdom
The Pundit Guy
Q & O
The Questing Cat
Qur'an Project
Rambling's Journal
Random Birkel
Random Numbers
Rather Biased
Rathergate.com
Rational Explications
RedState
Reliapundit
Revealed Truth
Riehl Worldview (Carnivorous Conservative)
Right on Red
The Right Place
The Rightwing Conspiracy
The Right Wing Conspirator
Rightwing Sparkle
Rip 'N Read (Podcasting)
Resurrectionsong
Running At the Mouth
The Sandwich Shop
Say Anything Blog
Scrappleface
Secure Liberty
Sekimori Liveblog
Seldom Sober
Semi-Intelligent Thoughts
Seraphic Press
Sharp as a Marble
Simon's New Blog Showcase
Simon World (Asiablog)
Roger L. Simon
Simply Kimberly
Six Meat Buffet
SlantPoint
Slithery D
Slublog
SlowPlay
The Smoking Room
SobekPundit
Son of Nixon
Sondra K/Knowlege is Power
South Park Pundit
SoxBlog
Speed of Thought
The Spoons Experience
International Capitalist/Starbanker
Stop the ACLU
Strange Women Lying in Ponds
Suburban Sundries Shack
Susskins Central Dispatch
Sweet Spirits of Amonia
Sydney T's Weblog
The Tar Pit
Team Hammer
tBlog-- Are You High?
Ten Fingers Six Strings
Texsanity
The Therapist
Thought Mesh
Thoughtomation
Thoughts On Line
Thunder Monkey
T. Longren
TMan in Tennessee
Total Vocabulary Failure*
Traction Control/US Citizen
Jim "Mother May I Sleep With" Treacher
Truth Laid Bear
Try On the Glasses
Two Crackas in My Soup
Twisted Spinster
Two Braincells
The Unabrewer
An Unamplified Voice (Music/Opera)
The Unpopulist
The Urban Grind
VA. Conservative
VanSantos
Velociworld
Viking Pundit
Villainous Company
Vote for Judges
The Wardrobe Door
The Waterglass
Way Off Bass
Matt Welch
White Pebble (Politics/Poetry)
Whitney Gaskell (Author)
Michael Williams/Master of None
Wing Nut Echo Chamber
Witty Sex Kitten (Journal)
WizBang
Wunderkinder
WunderKraut
(John from) Wuzzadem
Meryl Yourish
Actually, Rudi may get enough votes in the five boroughs, Westchester, Nassau and Suffolk counties to get New York's electoral votes, even though he may not carry NYC.
Rudi is still very popular in the NYC environs.
dick said..."LOS, Do you have ANY beliefs at all? Any ideas that you hold sacred? Or do you just think that being snarky makes you intelligent."
Of course I do.
But, please...you and I know exactly what YOU mean by "snarky."
Anything YOU don't agree with.
Here's something snarky for you: Bush will be remembered as the most inept, flat out dumb and worst President in our nation's history...and people like YOU continue to support the idiot.
Snarky enough...??
Simon,
Are you saying some in New York will vote for Rudy...even though he's a lying sack of shit?
Pogo: Why is Osama still making videos? I thought your little hero was going to kill him.
Wittle Dust Bunny's for Fred.
The kiss of death.
Rudy's rant against ferrets on his radio show was one for the ages.
Therious, this excethive concern with little weasels is a thickness! Consthult a thychiatrist, or thychologist, you have a thickness!
LOL
LOS: Osama is very disappointed that the left wing didn't end the war like they promised. He hates Bush. He hates the neocons. He likes Noam Chomsky . Plus, he's concerned about global warming and failed mortgages!
He might just be our very own LOS! Hell, he could be VP of the Democrat ticket!
Pogo,
Why is he still alive and making videos?
I mean...with Bush's huge "WAR ON TERROR??"
Right now there are literally 1,000' of terrorist cells, compared to BEFORE we went into Iraq.
You like that, huh?
LOS
Why the fake beard, dude?
And yet another less than intellectual response from the little dolt we call...Pogo.
Here's a tip: l-i-b-r-a-r-y.
DBQ: I doubt that "ha[ving] two little children and see[ing] that this country is going to Hell in a handbasket" is going to do it for Fred. The first describes, oh, 50 million dads in the country (including me). That Fred wants a better world for his kids -- what dad doesn't? -- isn't a particularly good argument to support Fred over the other millions of dads (including Rudy, Romney and McCain) in the same position. And, second, it's not true that the country is "going to Hell in a handbasket." (The "Hell in a handbasket" stuff sounds more like Edwards anyway.) We certainly live in a dangerous world, but all things considered, the country's actually in pretty good shape to deal with the dangers we face. It's a matter of willpower and leadership.
Nor is the Kerry example persuasive. Kerry never communicated any compelling reason why he was running or should be elected. He certainly had the sense of entitlement you mention, but that's the opposite of a compelling purpose motivating a candidacy. And the Dems chose him only because he was the last man standing who wasn't Dean and was supposedly "electable."
You say: "I would rather have a person like Washington or Fred Thompsom who has had the job thrust upon him by the persuasions of others." Only Washington ever had the presidency "thrust upon him;" and no one thinks of Thompson as Washington redivivus. If Thompson really wants the job, he had better start earning it. And the way to start is by offering a compelling answer to "why him?", and that gets back to why is he seeking the job.
And another reason to vote for MITT: Mitt Romney Finance Big Wig Charged with Child Abuse
OR...how about:
The New York Sun wants Petraeus to run for president in order to keep Bush’s Iraq policy in place.
LOS,
sorry, LOS, those are right wing sites. I am still waiting for a right wing sight.
You snarkiness is not working so well. It gets as tired as the quick comments that have no meaning that you throw off as if they were gold, not the dross that they are.
dick...and I do mean "dick."
You have to see the sights to understand.
snark, snark...
dick,
I have a suggestion for you.
Don't read or respond to my comments and blow me.
Wow, just wow!! So talented you are!!
Why does Fred think that US citizens who perform valuable services for the government while employed by private firms are ineligible to participate fully in politics?
His www site says this
https://fred08.com/Contribute.aspx
Confirm Your Eligibility By checking this box, I certify: You must certify your eligibility before proceeding
I am a U.S. citizen or permanent legal resident;
I am not a federal government contractor;
this is my personal credit card and this contribution is made from my own personal funds, not corporate, foreign national or labor union funds;
I will not be reimbursed by anyone for this contribution;
and my contributions to Friends of Fred Thompson Inc. will not aggregate in excess of $2,300 per election.
LOS,
As for the other comment, sorry but with the high cost of healthcare I can't afford the medication I would need to protect myself so no thanks. However, if you hurry, maybe you can talk Monica into it.
You say: "I would rather have a person like Washington or Fred Thompsom who has had the job thrust upon him by the persuasions of others." Only Washington ever had the presidency "thrust upon him;" and no one thinks of Thompson as Washington redivivus. If Thompson really wants the job, he had better start earning it. And the way to start is by offering a compelling answer to "why him?", and that gets back to why is he seeking the job.
No, I wasn't actually trying to imply that Fred Thompson is a George Washington: but making the point that a person who yearns for, covets and actually is crazy enough to want with a burning need the position of President, might not be the person we should be electing. Instead, a person, like Washington, who really would rather not have been in that position but was persuaded by others to take it up may be the better man or woman.
I agree that Fred needs to say why he wants to be President and what his goals are. So do all the candidates.
However, since Thompson just declared his a few days ago we might give him a week or so before we start tearing him down.
Have you looked at any of his writings, webcasts or videos? He is quite clear on his positions.
Sarge: It's nothing personal against Federal Contractors. No big conspiracy. It is a law.
"Seven states in addition to Connecticut and the federal government put restrictions on the connection between campaign contributions and government contract awards. They either (1) ban contract awards to certain campaign contributors or (2) place restrictions on contributions to at least some candidates for public office if the contributor has a contract to do business with the state or a particular agency or department."
http://www.cga.ct.gov/ps99/rpt/olr/htm/99-r-1132.htm
Just his campaign doing due diligence.
wow DBQ,
I had not realized that I was in the same class as:
The FECA places prohibitions on contributions and expenditures by certain individuals and organizations. The following are prohibited from making contributions or expenditures to influence federal elections:
Corporations;
Labor organizations;
Federal government contractors; and
Foreign nationals.
that would seem to make it illegal for 20 percent of the citizens to donate. all banks do business with the feds as well as almost all energy companies, all railroads, airlines, all of the Fortune 1000, and most every business in DC and the suburbs that employs more than maybe 100 people.
Contrary to the main stream media spin...Fred Thompson is very diligent and punctilious is his duties...in fact I understand he gives his wife a breast exam every other day...now that's due diligence.
Megan MacArdle is anti-Giuliani on the same grounds that any libertarian-leaning person would be. Can't imagine she thinks much of Edwards and Hillary either.
You're correct. Megan McArdle dislikes all of the candidates, Ron Paul included. Her comment on Hillary was "even if I were disposed to vote for her vintage 1967 earnest technocratic policies, I'd be more than a mite uncomfortable with a political lineup that went Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton."
From a libertarian perspective it doesn't matter that Rudy is hostile to many libertarian principles. He'll be running against Hillary, who is worse. Like every election since 1964, this is a "lesser of two evils" decision for libertarians.
Hey, Dick, in case you want a preview, here's a picture of my brother's dick.
Y'know, if I went around making stupid ass remarks like my bro, I wouldn't put up a picture of my privates on the web.
But he's a little funny up there, if you know what I mean.
LOS,
You better be careful. You are losing your place on the script from the DNC and MoveOn. Papa will spank if you don't get all your points in. Bad Dog!!
Hey, Dick, my brother has all kinds of deals going. Y'know, eBay, real estate in really cheesy places, that kinda thing.
Just between you and me, I think someone from the Clinton campaign pays him by the comment. Whaddya think, $2 or $5/comment? Idea is to clot up sites like this so nobody can get a word in edgewise. Keeps the Rudy types from influencing, like, lukewarm Clinton voters.
Funny thing is, Lucky thinks Mrs. Clinton is a liberal.
Ha Ha! Funny guy, huh?
Zeb Quinn said...
In fact I think a Guiliani-Thompson ticket would in fact run the table, 50-0.
I'll have some of what Zeb is having; that must be some potent stuff.
I read newspapers, periodicals and books, with stops at Huffington and a few right wing sights for reference purposes.
Lucky, no one believes you. All you do is rant and call people names. Most of all, you constantly accuse other people of being dumb and not reading themselves. This is a sure sign of a charlatan.
Post a Comment