Posted on 12/01/2009 9:49:31 AM PST by TruthHound
His marital infidelity doesn’t interest me since it has nothing to do with what makes a president great. If Rudy has the brains and talent to turn the present mess around, why should we care if he had a bad marriage and cheated on his wife? It’s not relevant. We’re not electing a pastor, we’re electing a political leader—someone with proven executive abilities. Few candidates are morally flawless—and those who seem so may be worst of all as leaders. That’s just the way the real world operates.
The truth is we should watch out we don’t nominate another gentleman like McCain who was reluctant to bring up embarrassing issues like the radicals who surrounded his opponent. He ran a lousy but polite campaign—so now we’re stuck with Obama.
Nor should we elect another gentleman like Bush. Don’t get me wrong—I voted for Bush, I liked him as a person. But his presidency faltered because he was too nice for these times, stubbornly refusing to fight fire with fire. He needed to clean up the CIA and its legion of back-stabbers—and wouldn’t. He needed to prosecute the publisher and editor of the NYTimes when that newspaper betrayed the nation by publishing official secrets compromising the war. Bush had the authority to legally do so but wouldn’t. Regarding Katrina he willingly took the rap rather than put the blame where it rightfully belonged, on the state governor and city mayor who failed their Louisianna constituents.
I realize Bush is beloved by many for his gentlemanly ways—but to me he failed his party and his base because he failed to realize we’re in a cold civil war and that what is most urgently needed at this time are WARRIORS. We need people willing to fight fire with fire—not gentlemen like McCain or Romney or Pawlenty or a host of other nice guys who finish last because they don’t know how to go for the jugular when it’s absolutely necessary. That’s not fighting dirty—that’s just the art of self-defense.
I want a scrapper at the top—and I don’t give a damn how bad a marriage he has or has had. His marital life is not relevant to me and mine because it has nothing to do with turning this country away from the brink of socialism. Only someone tough, someone with a record of achieving the impossible, someone like Rudy who can bang heads together and make things happen, can do this. All the rest are politicians-as-usual.
“Rudy, the RINO who had the early start as 2008 candidate and fizzled like a damp firecracker.”
Which is why the GOP primary system stinks. It’s rigged in favor of a bunch of farmers and evangelicals—with some small town New Hampshirites thrown in. Three small atypical states—which explains the obsessive discussions about ethanol or abortion, with very little emphasis on big state, big city issues. It was all over by the time it got to where I live—PA. Nobody in NY, NJ, CT, OH or anywhere else in the NE or Mid Atlantic had a vote that really counted. What really fizzled was the system—which keeps giving us losers like Dole and McCain. Even Reagan lost his bid for the nomination first time around. Which was too bad. He was already past his prime when he finally made it—barely—and then won in a landslide.
We need a fairer, regionally rotated system that gives all Republicans equal say about who their nominee will be.
Part of the job description. Reagan agreed with O'Neill simply to keep the US military from totally collapsing in the the post Vietnam / Jimmy Carter era. He set his priorities straight and I agree with his decision. Having a credible defense was his first priority, and we did not have one when he took office.
We must put the blame for the mess in its proper place and when it comes to spending, tis Congress that do the dirty deed.
Congress is two houses. During Reagan's first 6 years, the Republicans controlled the Senate, albeit with a slim majority. But the House 'majority' then was not a lock-step leftist cabal that we have now. There were plenty of blue dog dems then (I think a dozen of so even switched from D's to R's during those first few years.) If Reagan really wanted to stop that spending, he could have, but that would have only made it more difficult to get his defense budget through.
I'd advise not to look for another Reagan. Yes, he was the best of my lifetime too with the possible exception of Eisenhower whose many accomplishment have yet to be fully recognized. But neither of those men would fit into today. They were creatures of their times who did the best they could, and IMHO with the advantage of hindsight, both did pretty damn good. I think our job is to find a leader who will do the best for the times we are in. But it is big mistake, IMHO, to demand some ideological purity in looking for new leader. If that is what you demand, you will never find it. And although I personally don't find Romney all that attractive, those idiots here who keep harping on his religion need to find a new country to live in. That's not my America. As to the Mass health care thing, that is a state issue and up to the people of Mass. There was nothing violating the US Constitution there as there is in this national health care bill now.
I'm not crazy about the Huckster either, (the last Gov of Arkansas was not a good deal) and Thompson appears to be just an actor with no real fire in his belly. Talks nice and all that, but....
Frankly, the only person on the horizon right now that interests me at all is Palin, but I still don't know enough and it's still a long way from 2012, and who knows what will happen between now and then.
Big Dittos to that. I'm not crazy about Rudy, but we're not looking for the next Scout Master.
While I understand you put no value on honor and integrity in political leadership, continually puling they have nothing to do with great leadership is not only counter-intuitive, it's doctrinaire.
I'm reminded of the vast hords of myopic liberals who only discover the fruits of their disdain for traditional values AFTER their families are irrevocably shattered.
If Rudy has the brains and talent to turn the present mess around, why should we care if he had a bad marriage and cheated on his wife?
Because many are convinced one of the many requirements to "turn this mess around" is a degree of moral authority Rudy does not, and no longer can, possess.
You don't have to agree, but continually asserting "it's not relevant" does nothing but demean those you wish to pursuade.
We’re not electing a pastor, we’re electing a political leader—someone with proven executive abilities. Few candidates are morally flawless—and those who seem so may be worst of all as leaders. That’s just the way the real world operates.
Look, I understand, alright.I get your point. What you don't understand is you are affected by what I call "smoker's myopia."
Yes, there are thousands of smokers "in the real world," and they are utterly inured to the fact their very presence makes many want to retch! It's not because people are haughty, or self-righteous, or goldilockean: it's because smokers smell nasty.
So again, while I understand you put no great value on integrity, do not be so conceited as to think those of us who do lack "real world" experience.
I realize Bush is beloved by many for his gentlemanly ways—but to me he failed his party and his base because he failed to realize we’re in a cold civil war and that what is most urgently needed at this time are WARRIORS. We need people willing to fight fire with fire—...
In this we agree, which is why I support Palin as the ONLY leader on the horizon who has publically claimed to be a student of Horowitz.
Human history is full of tough-minded leaders ready to break heads. What's uniquely American are leaders who will do so "on the side of the angels" as Dinesh D'sousa wrote in "What's So Great About America."
Yea there were so many conservatives running in 2008. Wow how could FR not support McCain!!!
“Wow how could FR not support McCain!!!”
Mccain is no where near a conservative, but look what we got for not voting for him, or in my case, I voted against Barry, not for McCain. You sound like one of those that is all proud of your principled vote. And that will get us more Obamas. I hope you feel good.
When there is a conservative candidate I support them. i gave to Tancredo, Hunter and worked for Fred. Perfect conservatives no, but a damn sight better than Juan McCain.
In case you hadn't noticed: Obama's stock is dropping.
Given a choice, I'll take an Obama over a McCain, because it takes a Carter to get a Reagan.
By the time the primaries got to Indiana, all we had left to choose from was McCain, Huckabee and Paul. I voted for Huckabee even though I don’t care much for him. Indiana went overwhelming McCain, at least on the Republican side.
“Given a choice, I’ll take an Obama over a McCain, because it takes a Carter to get a Reagan.”
I’ve seen that a lot around here, but I don’t understand that thinking.
A brief memo before JimRob or a mod notices you and zots you. The folks around FR would never support Rudy for president. Most would not vote for him against Obama (they would vote for a third party candidate, write in someone, abstain on the presidency, or stay home).
Do you know of any human contest where you gain ground by defense?
Well, like I said, about 90% of FR is smarter than me.
:’D Thanks TH.
So be it. I gave my argument. It’s a good one. This has gotten deadly serious—too serious to chase after conservatives who have no record of achieving anything.
Do not know who you mean, but better someone with no achievements (like Lincoln in 1860) than one of the enemy.
“While I understand you put no value on honor and integrity in political leadership, continually puling they have nothing to do with great leadership is not only counter-intuitive, it’s doctrinaire.”
Of course I put a value on honor and integrity. But a messy private life is irrelevant in terms of leadership ability. One thing has nothing to do with the other. Rudy has had a messy private life—but when the chips were down on 9/11 he behaved with great honor and made all Americans proud. That’s all the proof we need to determine his character—not some mythical belief in good marriages. It’s on the record—and you lie to yourself to pretend it doesn’t count. Sure it counts—more than a good marriage counts. Besides, he never “cheated” on his wife. What he did he did openly, with full court press. He was not hiding anything. The whole world knew about it. So even on this the Rudy-haters get it wrong.
“Yes, there are thousands of smokers ‘in the real world,’ and they are utterly inured to the fact their very presence makes many want to retch! It’s not because people are haughty, or self-righteous, or goldilockean: it’s because smokers smell nasty.”
So if an enemy is putting your family in socialist chains, you won’t accept a rescue if the rescuer smokes and smells bad? Your family is about to be enslaved! Get real about this! The time for such delicate considerations is over! Your priorities are totally skewed—and patently ridiculous. Preserving freedom should be our top priority—before we decide socialism is preferable to electing someone with a flawed marital background! Put a clothespin on your nose and vote for someone who can do the job!
“Do not know who you mean, but better someone with no achievements (like Lincoln in 1860) than one of the enemy.”
I mean conservative favorites who haven’t proven their abilities as executives, senators and congressmen especially—people like DeMint and Hunter. Just because someone is conservative doesn’t mean they’re qualified to do the job—one that’ll be far more difficult than that facing most presidents. He or she would have to turn the country around now that it’s on the brink of socialism. I don’t think just holding conservative beliefs is enough. A candidate should be tough enough to do the job in a time of cold civil war—which is why I’m down on the gentlemanly types—pols like Pawlenty and Romney. I like people with proven records of reform who know how to fight—Sarah and Rudy.
I agree with you about not nominating long time legislators for President. They tend not to make good executives. In the 20th century the examples were Harding, Kennedy, and Ford (he had a couple of months as Veep, but had been a congressman forever).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.