Giuliaini: The National Security Candidate
I agree with quite a bit of this horserace analysis by conservative Patrick Ruffini, but I find this part, even if true, to be incredibly exasperating:
I agree that, for reasons that make no sense, Giuliani enjoys a reputation as some sort of expert on foreign policy and national security, but if I were Romney or Huckabee I would be pointing out at every opportunity that this reputation is totally undeserved. Giuliani doesn't have any legitimate claim to foreign policy expertise and rarely even sounds like he's done his homework on the subject.
Here's a tip for the Romney and Huckabee campaigns. If Giuliani tries to attack your guy for his "lack of national security experience," hit back hard. In a previous post I observed, snarkily, that Giuliani is no more an expert on terrorism than Ray Nagin is an expert climatologist or Gavin Newsome is an expert seismologist. Feel free to use that line.
For Rudy to survive, his campaign mantra for the next 29 days must be: national security, national security, national security. Is the national security party really going to nominee a former governor with zero national security experience to face al-Qaeda? This is Rudy’s key differentiator against Huckabee — and Mitt too.In a rational universe, everyone would laugh out loud at this line of reasoning. After all, why is a former mayor with no national security experience more qualified than a former governor with no national security experience. Beats me.
I agree that, for reasons that make no sense, Giuliani enjoys a reputation as some sort of expert on foreign policy and national security, but if I were Romney or Huckabee I would be pointing out at every opportunity that this reputation is totally undeserved. Giuliani doesn't have any legitimate claim to foreign policy expertise and rarely even sounds like he's done his homework on the subject.
Here's a tip for the Romney and Huckabee campaigns. If Giuliani tries to attack your guy for his "lack of national security experience," hit back hard. In a previous post I observed, snarkily, that Giuliani is no more an expert on terrorism than Ray Nagin is an expert climatologist or Gavin Newsome is an expert seismologist. Feel free to use that line.
posted by A.L. at 6:07 PM
10 Comments:
"...why is a former mayor with no national security experience more qualified than a former governor with no national security experience. Beats me."
Maybe I can help. First, divest yourself, once and for all, of the idea that this or that candidate is more "qualified," on the basis of the jobs he has held, than some other candidate. Why was Ronald Reagan, a movie actor with eight years' experience as a governor, more "qualified" than Jimmy Carter, who had not only been a governor but had served four years as president? Dunno, but the American people somehow knew, and in their wisdom elected one of the two great presidents of the 20th century, and treated to the boot-tip one of the most hapless fools ever to occupy the White House.
If you doubt my point, please tell us on what basis Bill Clinton was more qualified to be president than Bush I.
The only "qualification" for the office is that you be a 35-year-old natural-born citizen and get 270 electoral votes. Period.
We--and not just we Fascist Hyenas, but you moonbats as well--judge our candidates' qualifications according to how we think they will respond to the matters that concern us the most. I am most concerned about the loonies who will do anything at all to murder us, and I believe Rudy Giuliani would be most willing to confront and defeat them without undue reservation. You are most concerned about--well, I don't know, I'll leave it to you to tell us--and you believe (apparently) that Mr. Obama would best address those concerns. What are his qualifications?
What does any of this have to do with "qualifications?" Nothing at all. George Washington had been a farmer and a general. Abe Lincoln had been a congressman. W. Wilson had been a university president. And so on...
Neutral, you seem to have missed the point. Nowhere did AL say that "qualification" is the sole reason why we should vote for one candidate over another. He is only pointing out that the criterion put forth by conservatives (in this case) is applied in a way that makes no sense.
I agree with Neutral. We shouldn't judge presidential candidates exclusively on the basis of their experience, because there is no experience that matters when it comes to the Presidency.
Here are some things which we could judge candidates on, though. I'm going to only consider three of them, as I don't want this to ramble on too long.
1. Their ability to pick capable, honest people to work for them, and keep them honest. Giuliani is hands down the last person who should be elected on this score alone (see: Kerik, for example), and it's arguably the most important one for a President. All the great presidents were great because they did this, especially Lincoln.
2. Their ability to explain and hold true to some coherent, rational, and constitutional principles. Giuliani fails spectacularly on this as well, but is even more spectacularly out-failed by Romney. Huckabee gets honorable mention, for some truly weird ideas, but he's at least coherent, and usually constitutional. Ron Paul wins this one, but I'm restricting myself to the candidates with a chance.
These are the two most important things that a president could have, and Giuliani is a disaster on both accounts.
The third important thing a President can have is luck, which Reagan had in spades and Carter had none of. This isn't an ability, though, and future success cannot be predicted based on past success. Seems to me Giuliani gets bad marks on this as well.
Thank you, Ard.
Indeed, I don't think "qualifications" are particularly important. I was just pointing out that it makes no sense to suggest that Giuliani is more "qualified" than his opponents, particularly when it comes to national security issues.
Moreover, there has probably never been a more "qualified" set of high government officials than Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, who have each held just about every job short of president. And I would rather have just about anyone else as president, including my dog.
I think intelligence and open-mindedness are much better qualities to look for.
Well said, C2.
I guess I have a lower threshold for qualifying a candidate for president in my mind. I look for someone with common sense who actually explains issues and their resolution using facts.
Personally, after the last seven years of this Republican administration, I can't imagine that any sensible person would even consider a Republican candidate for president....period.
I'll defer to Al's characterization of the point he was making--certainly he knows better than I what he meant. I was perhaps thrown a little bit off by items like this:
"I agree that, for reasons that make no sense, Giuliani enjoys a reputation as some sort of expert on foreign policy and national security, but if I were Romney or Huckabee I would be pointing out at every opportunity that this reputation is totally undeserved. Giuliani doesn't have any legitimate claim to foreign policy expertise and rarely even sounds like he's done his homework on the subject."
I agree that the point C2 makes concerning appointments is important, and that Giuliani does not fare well. But Hillary Clinton should be decisively eliminated from consideration on that basis. Consider her influence in the selection of Kimba Wood, Lani Guinier, Janet Reno, her partner the convicted felon Webb Hubbel, Joycelyn Elders and the whole rotten bunch.
Probably the most "qualified" on the basis of prior jobs held was Bush I--and in my view he was inadequate to the task as president.
Finally, let us hear no more of the "luck" of Reagan and Carter. It wasn't luck that led Reagan to slash the top marginal tax rate from 70%, or to place the IRBM's in Europe--the immediate cause of the Soviet collapse--and it wasn't luck that left Carter paralyzed from beginning to end of the the Iranian hostage crisis. Nor was it luck that led Carter to decline to suport the Shah, facilitating the rise of the Ayatollah, all because of the Shah's human-rights performance. Carter can truly be said to be the midwife, if not the father, of modern jihadism. Luck is the residue of design...
Only a right winger would try to say that a tax cut for the rich caused the fall of the soviet union lol..
neutral:
Your descriptions of the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Iranian hostage crisis are ludicrous. I really really hope you're a troll and not an American voter and citizen honestly expressing his views.
How can you attribute a complex economic, social, and political event to a new missile that would allow the U.S. to blow up the U.S.S.R. 11 times in 10 minutes rather than 10 times in 30minutes? Mutually-assured destruction had been a reality since the '60s - new toys didn't modify that fact.
Secondly, if you called Carter ineffective I would agree, but "paralyzed" contradicts the historical record. He attempted negotiations with Iran, and he ordered a rescue attempt. The fact that both were utter fiascos can support the notion that he was ineffective, but they hardly indicate paralysis.
Furthermore, although Carter was less of a friend to the Shah than previous presidents, the Iranian revolution was significantly caused by the Shah's close relationship with America. The hostage-taking was a part of a revolution against the Shah and a response to Carter's decision to allow the shah to recieve medical care in America.
Also, you apparently view a poor human rights record as a sin roughly on the level of having a bad haircut. When we talk about the Shah's bad human rights record, we are talking about fascistic one-party rule, oppressive surveillance and control of all aspects of citizen's lives, elimination of independent legal structures, subordination of a nation to a unitary military leader, and of course, torture and murder of political dissidents. The fact that terrorists suck too doesn't make the shah a heckuva guy.
"Neutral" said:
We--and not just we Fascist Hyenas, but you moonbats as well--judge our candidates' qualifications according to how we think they will respond to the matters that concern us the most. I am most concerned about the loonies who will do anything at all to murder us, and I believe Rudy Giuliani would be most willing to confront and defeat them without undue reservation. You are most concerned about--well, I don't know, I'll leave it to you to tell us--and you believe (apparently) that Mr. Obama would best address those concerns. What are his qualifications?
I believe you missed the point. A.I. was pointing these facts out as points of attack for Giuliani and Romney's opponents. At least that's the way I read it.
Thanks, though, for pointing out that there are still lots of people whose most prominent concern, STILL, is the personal dread of terrorist attack.
An economy in the process of imploding (record stock market, though!), imminent threat of sea-level inundating coastal cities world-wide, record droughts here and abroad, 40% of our citizens with no or inadequate access to proper health care, our national reputation in utter ruin globally and there are STILL people like you hiding under your beds wimpering for Roy Rogers to ride in and keep you safe. Pathetic.
Chances are high we'll see more of what countries like Israel, Lebanon, etc., have been seeing for many years but that's no reason to let that POSSIBILITY rule the way we run the country (isn't that obvious BY NOW?).
The threat from global climate chang dwarfs the threat posed by the jihadis by orders of magnitude and yet people like you still drive your Hummers the two blocks down to the Dunkin Donuts every morning.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home