Redstate

"What has Fred managed successfully so far? To me not very much."

He has managed to root out corruption in both the White House and in a Governor's mansion. That says something to me. It also says something to voters, which incidentally mark corruption as a major issue.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

leading Congressional investigations is frankly small potatos to running the Country. If you think that puts his leadership resume in the same ball park as Rudy's, well then I will strenuously disagree.

"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"

Ronald Reagan

www.proprietornation.blogspot.com

he was nothing special and never had the aura of Reagan. I hope he does gain this, but those that believe he has it, "just because" are deluding themselves. Rudy is a much stronger fighter at this juncture.

I have problems with some Rudy positions, but at least the guy stands by his convictions. I agree Fred does too, but why attack Rudy simply because you do not agree with his convictions. The primary will be settled not by who is hte most "electable" it will be decided by who WINS!

We are lucky to have so many good candidates, let's not trash them, let's let them race and see who wins.

btw, Rudy is not a liberal, and I don't respect anyone who gets their political marching orders from a pastor. Harsh? maybe, but that is how I feel as a Christian.

Molon Labe!

From some people's perspective, Rudy IS a liberal. Whether one is a liberal, conservative, moderate, or none of the above is very subjective. I'm not sure where I would put Rudy, but it would not be in the moderate or conservative categories from my point of view.

Your comment about a "pastor" is bizarre, nonsensical, and misplaced. What does that have to do with voting for Rudy?

the OP was talking about how many Republicans are nto properly giving credit to the Religious Right. Well what exactly is that? When I hear Religious Right I think of evangelicals that only vote by what their pastor says. And yes, I have empirical evidence. I am not liberal, not in any way, social or economic. but I will not pander to those who are not interested in the whole of politics, but only one issue and could care less about small government nad the Republican agenda.

Sir, I know very well what I am talking about, if you choose to debate me fine, but don't give me this "i don't understand" crud.we all understand, on both sides.

to those who will only vote Republican for someone who wants a Federal Constitutional amendment, I do not think of you as a band of brothers, just those who I hope can see reality and vote for the best possible candidate.

You say Rudy is not conservative or moderate, but he leads in our party's polls, how do you answer that? Republican one issue voters helped us get Pelosi and Reid, if you want Clinton too, keep it up.

Molon Labe!

and frankly, it smacks of anti-religious bigotry. Please keep your biased, condescending idiocy to yourself. If you don't like those who vote their conscience, fine, but slurs about the "religious right" simply voting what "their pastor says" is utter crap.

I am well established on this blog. I am a Christian and a conservative. I do not go to church for my marching orders. The OP said we should give more respect to the religious right. well, what exactly does that mean? I think the War on Terror has priority and also small government. The government should not hassle evangelicals, nor should it put their faith on others.

Until recently, the Religious Right was for small government. They did not want to be hassled and told what to do. Now, a small percentage of them, wants to tell us what to do. They are the ones who gave us Frist and other losers.

We need to get back to our small government roots. We need to realize government is not the solution but the problem, as Ronald Reagan said.

I do not respect those who vote because their church told them to, if you do not like it, tough!

Molon Labe!

how well-established you are, nor if you are a Christian conservative (which I am as well). Your implication is that Christians "vote because their church tells them to", and that's an asinine broad-brush stereotype of Christians, and it's bull. Your supposed "empirical" evidence no doubt consists of you knowing a few acquaintances who can't think for themselves. Care to provide some statistical evidence of your ridiculous assertion? While there may be some out there who are led about by their nose by Christian "leaders" and/or pastors, your characterization is ludicrous. Back your assertion with evidence that's not anecdotal and maybe you'll be taken seriously.

btw, you are wrong when you say I paint Christians with a broad brush, you obviously failed reading comprehension. I said those that call themselves "The Religious Right", something I would never call myslelf, often vote only for religious reasons.

We are at war sir, you would deny someone who wants to defend America simply becuase he does not plan on banning abortion nationwide? Also, many Religious Righter's do not even understand our federal government. It is likely as not that our next president will not be able to propose ANY new supreme court justices. Furthermore, the Supreme court has a habit of purposely choosing NOT to decide on controversial cases. The last time they deciced on a serious 2nd Amenendment case was 1939.

Look, I hope all of the Religious Right votes Republican. If they sit out because they do not like Rudy or they think Mitt is the wrong religion, then they can sit and spin.

Molon Labe!

Take your anti-religious crap somewhere else. The accusation that the "Christian Right" is a group of sheep that takes their marching orders from a pastor is reprehensible.

My "Christian right" views (lefty code words for pro-life) come from a Christian sense that the right of a child to live trumps the right of a woman to kill her child. I don't need a pastor to tell me that. Your assinine suggestion shouldn't be shileded because you've been around for a awhile (or because you claim to be both Christian and conservative).

That you use the same talking points as a Daily Kos'er should give you some hesitation to think of what you've written.

"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe

I'm sure that a bit of reflection will suggest that the rhetoric is getting a perhaps touch overheated all around.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

I apologize for getting overheated. I am not anti-Christian, I am a Christian and proud of it. I was talking out of frustration about as small group of people who vote ONLY on abortion and refuse to participate unless "their guy" wins the primary. I do think there IS evidence that some voters only participate when a major abortion vote is on tap, I don't think any of them post here. I do respect anyone's views on abortion and other social concerns.

Molon Labe!

Can you point out where the "religoius right" or "religion" was mentioned in the original post? I can't seem to find it.

Also, where was "only one issue" mentioned? I can't seem to find that either.

"You say Rudy is not conservative or moderate, but he leads in our party's polls, how do you answer that?"

That's easy. Less than a third of likely Republican primary voters know his positions, and only about half know the other major candidates

Well, Fred has managed to move into 2nd place, without spending a ton of money and time doing so.

Fred has managed to capture the hopes of a goodly number of Republicans - just by being himself, apparently.

He's not the most Conservative Candidate available, so he's managed to do quite well based on ideas, perceptions and, dare I say it: electability.

....and in the broader world, perception really does equal reality.

Was Reagan actually a manager? Or did he select competent people to manage departments? People who had the same vision and philosophy.

Bill Clinton was successful, but not because he could manage. Too many of his appointments were political payoff, such as Dept of Agriculture. Poor manager, politically successful.

I can understand that you may not like Clinton as the model for success. Still, consider the alternative.

GWB is a manager's manager. I love the guy, will vote for him again even if he sets aside the constitution and declares himself dictator for life (snark), but his management style hasn't turned into success.

When Fred Thompson talks I listen.

He reminds many of us of IKE.

He exudes confidence and I return that to him.

He does not sit back and let those who do not want to robustly defend America get free licks in.

This is an absolutely vital quality in a president, and it is really a shame that President Bush is not stronger in this area. Bush can be good at this "You're either with us or against us" but he isn't continually on message about this, and unfortunately he needs to be.

There is a really simple question all Americans need to answer: Do we want America to win or do we want the terrorists to win? The president needs to ask this question over and over, and unfortunately he has to ask a lot of people in Congress and the media this question because they just don't seem to get it.

I hope that whoever our next president is, he goes after the Americans who don't want America to win with the skill and tenacity that Rudy goes after Moveon.org and their fellow travelers.

She would ask him what he planned to do about Social Security and Medicaid. After he had explained that he planned to abolish them she would be beating him in 50 states. That's the lineup that could get Bloomberg elected.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

on a whole group of weapons, like an assault weapons ban. For instance, I would be all for a ban on uzis, because I don't think you NEED an uzi to protect yourself. Thus, his position on guns bothers me more than any of his positions. That said, again, being mayor of New York is a lot different than being President, and he simply could not have a bunch of people all walking around packing heat. That would lead to disaster in such a huge and populated city.

You are right. He believes in strict constructionist judges. They can read the second amendment and thus there will be no ban on guns in his administration.

He is a fiscal conservative, with a record to prove it unlike Thompson, he believes in smaller government, and again he has proven it unlike Thompson, and he wants to appoint strict constructionist judges. Does anyone doubt his terror fighting credentials based on his crime fighting record in New York?

"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"

Ronald Reagan

www.proprietornation.blogspot.com

I hate to disagree with you, but you aren't reading the Second Amendment correctly, either.

For instance, I would be all for a ban on uzis, because I don't think you NEED an uzi to protect yourself

If the Second was limited to personal defense, that would hold water, but self-defense is only a peripheral part. The idea is defense against any enemy foreign or domestic which means that military-style weaponry is exactly what we need.

As for NYC, sure it is a big city with a lot of people, but you either believe in the right to self-defense or you don't. You do not lose the right to self-preservation just because there are a lot of people around you.

I am a pragmatist on many matters. First, the best defense I have ever read or heard came from Judge Napolitano, of Foxnews fame, in his book, Constitutional Chaos, and one I recommend for reading. Frankly, until I read that book, I really didn't understand the logic or importance of the 2nd Amendment.

http://www.amazon.com/Constitutional-Chaos-Happens-Government-Breaks/dp/...

You may be right, and for that, maybe I should change my mind. I will give it some thinking.

As for Giuliani, well, all of that maybe true, however he had a city that was overrun with crime. To you the most important thing maybe the protection of Constitutional rights, however his citizens just wanted to feel safe. That is what he provided. In any case, my point is that he will view the 2nd amendment a lot different as President than he did as mayor.

"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"

Ronald Reagan

www.proprietornation.blogspot.com

I hope that he would view the Second Amendment differently as President than as mayor, but from his history, I just can't bring myself to buy that. I hope that I am wrong and you are dead on in your prediction.

To you the most important thing maybe the protection of Constitutional rights, however his citizens just wanted to feel safe.

You might well be exactly correct about this, but I don't understand it myself. How can a person feel safer disarmed and at the mercy of anyone who is armed, than to be able to defend themselves? It just doesn't make sense to me.

was packing heat in the city. I don't know exactly how many people are in NY, but it is a lot, and with everyone having a gun it became almost unmanageable.

Look, his record in fighting crime speaks for itself. He had a plan and one part of the plan was limiting the guns that people were carrying. If the stats worked another way, then I think there should be more criticism, but in this case his overall plan worked.

"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"

Ronald Reagan

www.proprietornation.blogspot.com

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

The NYC gun ban was passed way back in the 20s or 30s. It had to do with disarming scabs opposing union goons. If "everyone was packing heat" in 93 they were all breaking the law. Did that make the citizens safer? The DC mayor is trying the argument that the 2nd A is good for them rural rubes, but city folks have to be defenseless. I hope it won't sell.

To give RG some credit, he had no chance to repeal the NYC gun ban. But to imply that a gun ban is needed or effective anti-crime policy in any circumstance is counter-factual. More Guns, Less Crime.

I wonder if anyone's proven a statistically significant drop in crime over time after cities have done 'turn in your guns' programs. Guns for toys, guns for shoes, guns for whatever, the lefties in big cities love them, but I doubt they've ever made a difference.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

John Lott is perhaps the foremost guy on the 2nd Amendment side. I've heard him speak and the gist of what he has found over many years of looking at gun laws is:

Handgun and other gun bans usually lead to MORE crime and more violent crime.

Many gun laws and regulations have seemingly no, or negligble effect on crime rates.

The only things he has found in terms of gun laws that significantly reduces crime are concealed carry laws. States and localities that allow you to carry a concealed weapon (with permit, without permit, whatever) see a marked drop in most violent street crime (muggings, rape, etc.) - the thugs just can't be sure that the victim isn't going to have a piece on him (or her).

I need to be a broken record. Rudy made New York safer. This was one piece of his plan. It mat have had nothing to do with the drop in crime but no one doubts that not only did crime drop significantly but that Rudy had a lot to do with it.

"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"

Ronald Reagan

www.proprietornation.blogspot.com

Why don't you write a diary that lists, point by point, what he did to make New York City safer. Specifically the measures he passed, the orders he gave, and the things he started and saw to completion.

If you can quote him for each one it'd be fantastic, but of course a lot of work.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

Have time now however it started with a mandate to get tough on all crimes, hë also did away with a lot of the affirmative action hiring and promotion practices and most importantly he set up a system where crime stats were better analyzed creating more accountability and also a better ability to analyze. I think he called it Comstat.

"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"

Ronald Reagan

www.proprietornation.blogspot.com

I hope you're not a libertarian, because REASON magazine just did a cover on "The Right to Own a Bazooka"--and they ain't talkin' about the gum, Dog.

Seems some nut at REASON believes protecting yourself from the Feds is just what the Framers had in mind.

We all have to be vigilant here not to make common cause with Ron Paul supporters, ya' know.

---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

they intended. Of course, when the revolution comes, I'll be packing a kabar.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

but few really know what they are talking about when it comes to UZI's or other assault weapons.

The reality is that machine guns, such as fully automatic UZIs have been legal since the national firearms act of 1935. To own a fully automatic weapon, you need to pay a couple hundred dollars to the ATF and have a background check.

Ironically, the Clinton Gun Ban AKA (assault weapons ban) was NOT on fully automatic weapons, but on semi-automatic weapons. In other words, one pull of the trigger = one shot. The left wingers decided which gun was "illegal" buy if it looked "scary" if it was colored black or if it had a bayonet lug.

in other words, a fully automatic UZI was legal, while a semi-automatic UZI could not be purchased unless it was already in private hands prior to 1994.

People like to say well "I believe in the second amendment but such and such gun is not needed". If you could sound more like a left wing bureaucrat, I can not think of a way you could. The reality is the Clinton Gun Ban, (that only banned "scary looking semi autos" was created by those who have NO knowledge of small arms at all.

Furthermore, it has been shown by empirical evidence, that "assault weapons" are used in less than 1 percent of gun crimes.

The problem is government must create new laws in order to show why it is needed. The reality is, the laws that matter were created a long long time ago, creating new laws (restrictions on freedom) do nothing to help us, they only butress the idea that the Federal Government is our nanny and we need it to protect us from ouselves.

Molon Labe!

To further illustrate the silliness of the Clinton Gun Ban was the fact that it was possible to legally purchase real military 'assault' rifles from the Federal Government. It still is. The Civilian Marksmanship Program allows normal folks to purchase M1 Garands and other military rifles by showing proof of particiapting in shooting sports, being a member of a gun club, etc. The weapons have bayonet lugs, are semiautomatic, and may have actually been there for an 'assault'!

It is obvious, really. Handguns are pointless in a large scale attack, and fully automatics are useless for killing one person from any more than 20 feet. We can't ban either cause we might need them both. Of course the criminals will still get a hold of them no matter WHAT ban is passed. The worst infringement is the fact that you have to pay over $150 dollars for training for concealed carry, then pay to go to a range to get your hours in, then pay for the license, buy a gun...etc. and still not be able to take it with you where you need the protection the most: Work, College, the Bank, On an Airplane, you get the idea. What good is a gun if you can't even have it when you need it?

Are you good with a ban on them because they are fully automatic? If so, what about an Uzi that is semi automatic? Should that be banned as well, and if so why.

FWIW, from inside twenty feet, unless I'm faced with an excellent shot who is very well drilled in combat shooting, I'll likely do more damage to him with my six inch tactical knife than he will to me with semi automatic pistol.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

I don't know enough about guns to know the difference between a semi and fully automatic uzi. I do know that an uzi is quite a weapon and a lot less can protect you, though the other post made me reconsider my position on the matter, and soon I will be against a ban on any weapon.

"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"

Ronald Reagan

www.proprietornation.blogspot.com

For what the framers intended the second amendment for, mucking around with handguns isn't enough.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

Handguns are precisely what the gun grabbers are after. They went after "assault weapons" because they knew they could confuse enough of the public that had little knowledge of firearms.

I am amazed people say handguns are ineffective, that is the opposite of the truth. While no one who is serious would bring a handgun to a gunfight, the reality is most people do not go to gunfights on purpose. A handgun is there when you need it and some 90 percent of defensive shootings are made with handguns.

also, to the guy who said a fully automatic weapon is no good outside of 20 yds, well what can I say exactly without being mean? I would just say do a bit more studying of the issue.

The real reality is machine guns are fun to shoot but not very cost effective. With a fully automatic weapon you will spend about $120 a minute on ammo. And again, fully automatic weapons ARE LEGAL, and have been since 1935. about less than 1 percent of gun owners have them, mostly collectors have them.

The problem with gun control is that pretty much any law that hurts law abiding citizens fails to stop any criminals. We can debate who "needs" what 'til we are blue in the face. What it comes down to is when a government denies a citizen his right to self protection, that government is being tyranical, and the cost can be deadly.

Molon Labe!

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

I heard Franz can do damage from up to a 50 foot range with no weapon at all....but then I guess that's why Franz is running for POTUS-maybe a Franz/Chuck Norris ticket for the newly formed Bada** Party-even I might go 3rd party for that :)

We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war.-Ann Coulter

Coulter/Thompson 08!

A dog-stare and even a small growl has been known to reduce the nastiest ax murderer to a quivering puddle of unset jello. I wouldn't take him on if I had a gatling gun and a five minute head start. Watching him bite the bullets out of mid-air and spit them back is just more than you can even imagine.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

at short distance, a man who knows how to use a knife (not many do) is much more dangerous than a "gunman".

Molon Labe!

I thought the so-called South Park Conservatives were live and let live, western type libertarian Republicans? Most of them can't be won by a pro-gun control guy. Even the DEMOCRATS figured that out.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

So, South Park Conservative, you don't agree with the Second Amendment? What other parts of the Constitution do you not like? It is always nice to find out which side of individual freedom someone is on. You never answered my questions on the other thread, so I gather you either can't explain your opposition to the right to keep and bear arms or don't want to do so because you can't back it up. I really appreciate that you are willing to give up my freedom so you can feel safer. Again, do you have the faintest clue in the world as to what the Second Amendment is about?

Do you even know what an assault weapon is? I'm guessing you don't.

"I get tired of hearing Giuliani described as a liberal. Just because he doesn't match the culturally conservative litmus test on every issue doesn't mean he's liberal.

The fact that he was the Liberal Party of New York's candidate for mayor tend to make him a liberal. His history also makes him a liberal (guess who he voted for in 1972 (hint his first name is George). His position on the FairTax, flat tax, and the taxpayer pledge do not help him out either.

"He's a federalist who is in favor of limited government and strong on the War on Terror. If you're a consistent federalist, then you're in favor of leaving social issues to the states anyway, which means you will appoint strict constructivist judges, leaving people living in red states with the social policies they desire."

Consistent Federalist huh that is funny. A consistent Federalist would not support sanctuary cities, Roe v. Wade, or the undermining of the Constitution.

"As far as gun-grabbing, what do you need with an assault weapon? Are you planning to take out dozens of people in a matter of seconds? If not, I'm sure you can find a handgun, rifle, or other weapon to suit your needs. I'm in favor of an assault weapons ban for national security in order to protect against a terrorist attack using assault weapons. It's a weapon of mass killing like tanks or missiles. The 270 million guns in America will keep the government in check with or without assault weapons."

Two words Second Amendment. Moreover, government weapons prohibitions do not protect people from attack They encourage attack by making citizens into soft vulnerable targets.

I also do not think you know what the words assault weapon mean.

Do you seriously believe that a committed terrorist will have any trouble arming themselves under any firearms prohibition?

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

who he voted for in 1972 as proof he is liberal? I think that is a bunch of nonsense, with all due respect.

Again, governing the city of New York is a lot different than governing the United States. He came in and crime was out of control. He came up with a comprehensive plan that including, but not exclusively, limited access to guns. The plan worked and crime was reduced dramatically. I believe that Rudy is a pragmatist in this case. I don't think he will spend much time in his administration trying to get the federal government to limit access to handguns. He is socially liberal, but in the only way it matters, he will appoint strict constructionist judges, and for proof look at his team, including Miguel Estrada, on the issue of judges. Fiscally, there is no question he is a conservative. He made government smaller and cut taxes.

Finally, Fred so far is all talk. Anyone can proclaim to be the champion of anything as long as they aren't governing. It is easy to say you will cut taxes and a lot more difficult to do it, especially when most of your legislature is liberal.

"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"

Ronald Reagan

www.proprietornation.blogspot.com

The crime situating improved in New York because he did something novel (he enforced laws, which got criminals off the streets and deterred other people from becoming criminals), not because he tried to revoke the 2nd Amendment.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

worked. What exactly is your point?

Again, he came in with a plan to reduce crime, that included but not exclusively limited guns, and that plan reduced crime in a dramatic way. In other words, he has a proven history of being an effective crime stopper. My goodness, that is definitely not someone who I would want as President, I would much rather vote for someone who has no history of being effective at managing anything.

Again, do all of you really think Rudy would spend anytime in his admin trying to limit people's access to guns? I don't think so. I think he will focus on being a tax cutter, limiting government and being a terror warrior.

You are all debating issues of his record that are going to be minute in his administration.

"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"

Ronald Reagan

www.proprietornation.blogspot.com

"Again, he came in with a plan to reduce crime, that included but not exclusively limited guns, and that plan reduced crime in a dramatic way. In other words, he has a proven history of being an effective crime stopper. My goodness, that is definitely not someone who I would want as President, I would much rather vote for someone who has no history of being effective at managing anything."

I acknowledged that he is a proven crime fighter. That is his strength. My points are (1) Crime fighter/competent administrator is all he has got (2) His attack on the 2nd Amendment did not help reduce crime, it instead probably undermined his other crime fighting activities.

"Again, do all of you really think Rudy would spend anytime in his admin trying to limit people's access to guns? I don't think so. I think he will focus on being a tax cutter, limiting government and being a terror warrior."

In this world we have to judge people by their past actions, and the sad reality is the Rudy is no friend of the 2nd Amendment. Given his history we have every reason to believe that he will not veto anti-second amendment legislation. Heck his record suggests that he would push anti-second amendment legislation.

"You are all debating issues of his record that are going to be minute in his administration."

Practically speaking it take less than a minute to sign a law, or executive order into effect. A minute matters if it is used to undermine the Constitution.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

how many accomplishments does he need from his time as mayor. ARe you kidding me?

What does Thompson have? He is a great lawyer. That is all anyone has come up with. He ran a couple of good investigations. I should vote for Thompson over Rudy because he ran a couple of good investigations in six years in the Senate.

"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"

Ronald Reagan

www.proprietornation.blogspot.com

I'm not really trying to beat a dead horse, here, but there are legitimate ways to reduce crime and illegitimate ways to reduce crime. Preventing law-abiding citizens from having the ability to protect themselves is a illegitimate method. He did reduce crime a lot, so I understand - good for him for the parts that he did the right way. Gun control was not one of them.

A reduction in crime by itself doesn't mean a whole lot without looking at the mitigating factors causing that reduction. Countries with an authoritarian government often have low crime rates, but at a huge cost. I am not comparing Rudy to an authoritarian country - I just want to note that things have to be done the correct (and Constitutional) way.

By the way, Mike, there's nothing personal in this. Unlike SPC, you at least have reasoning and aren't just throwing out anti-gun statements.

his gun bans may very well have done little to bring the crime rate down. My point is that he came in with a plan to reduce crime and it included limiting guns. His plan worked and the numbers don't lie. That means he was effective at cutting crime which frankly, most people thought was impossible in New York. He was effective at cutting taxes and limiting government in New York as well and that is difficult given the make up of the legislature.

My point is that he isn't going to spend much time as President trying to limit guns. I don't see that. His priorities will be cutting taxes, limiting government and fighting terror.

On most of the things that traditional conservatives disagree with Rudy on, I just don't see those being much priority in his admin. Again, do you really think he is going to spend much time federally funding abortions, limiting guns, and trying to institute gay marriage.

On the things we do agree with him on, cutting taxes, appointing strict constructionist judges, aggressively fighting the war on terror, limiting the size of government, those are also the things that he will spend the majority of time on.

Most importantly, he is proven to be effective at all of those things.

Thompson has accomplished little if nothing in all of the areas you all agree with him on.

"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"

Ronald Reagan

www.proprietornation.blogspot.com

I think it will take him altogether a total of ten minutes to sign the Democrat's bill for a assault weapons ban, to sign the Democrat's bill legalizing gay marriage, to sign the Democrat's bill to legalize stem cell research, to sign the Democrats bill permanently legalizing abortion...get where I'm going here? He doesn't have to drive his liberal social agenda-the Democrats will be more than happy to drive it for him-but don't look for too mnay vetoes to come down from his side on ideas where he's shown he aggrees with the far left.

We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war.-Ann Coulter
Thompson/Coulter '08!

First, while he is personally in favor of gay marriage, he also sees it as a federalist issue and would never back a national law that allows gay marriage.

The issue of guns is the same way. I don't think he would have been in favor of an assault weapons ban had he been mayor of Savannah, Georgia rather than New York.

I don't know what his position on stem cell research but he is a small government conservative so federal funding for any program would be met with extreme skepticism.

"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"

Ronald Reagan

www.proprietornation.blogspot.com

So Rudy's position on issues varies with where he is in the country. Boy that sounds an awful lot like the criticisms of another NorthEasterner in our party running for President. Just to be clear, since my guy doens't have a big history of needing to pander-how would he have done in Colorado or Kansas on immigration-or does that go with the territory. Your whole argument was-boy Rudy would be a real conservative if he had just run as a Republican in another city. The fact is-what stopped him? Nobvody put a gun to Rudy Guiliani and said, stay in New York and become a liberal Republican-if he wanted to be a conservative in another state he could have moved-or he could have run on principles and lost, if principles mean anything to voters anymore. Your argument for Rudy is getting weaker and more diluted and you seem to be standing on the legs of electability and I promise he'll be a real conservative once he gets away from all those Liberal New Yorkers he's always been around.

We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war.-Ann Coulter
Thompson/Coulter '08!

again, since you haven't read most of my comments. Crime was out of control when Rudy came into office. He had a comprehensive plan that included, though not exclusively, limiting guns. That plan worked. The numbers don't lie. Now, maybe it had nothing to do with limiting handguns, however, he was in charge of the plan. Period.

If you don't understand that there is a difference between governing Savannah, New York and the entire U.S. I can't help you, and at this point I don't think that Thompson knows it himself, since he has never governed anything.

Your guy is apparently a good lawyer, mediocre senator, and mediocre actor.

Now, I am supposed to vote for him because he generally agrees with me even though he has absolutely no history of accomplishing any of the ideas that he believes.

Rudy cut taxes, limited government, reduced crime, increased the economy, and this is after a stint in which he convicted an enormous amount of really bad people, many mobsters included.

Again, I am supposed to vote for a guy who has very little in the way of actual accomplishments because I generally agree with him more. If I wanted to vote for a President who agrees with me, I would run myself. There needs to be a level of competence that comes with the candidate, and Thompson is long on ideas and very short on competence.

"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"

Ronald Reagan

www.proprietornation.blogspot.com

...that everyone thinks, with respect to crime. I did some reading a while back on his execution of the "Broken Windows" theory, and found more than a trivial amount of skepticism. For example, look here, here, and here for some contrary opinions. And a corresponding Wikipedia article on the book "Fixing Broken Windows" points to several sources of skepticism also.

Broken windows was only one piece of his plan. He stopped the affirmative action programs in the police, he set up a method to analyze and track crime stats, and he instituted the broken windows policy.

Frankly, the numbers do not lie. Crime did not just drop by accident during his term.

You all can try and poke holes in his term as mayor however the numbers do not lie.

"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"

Ronald Reagan

www.proprietornation.blogspot.com

Since your posting came so soon after mine, I doubt you did.

Dinkins had made a lot of changes before Giuliani ever came into office, such as significantly beefing up the police force. Also, most of the articles that show skepticism credit the effects of an overall demographic change that resulted in a nationwide drop in crime.

So the numbers may not have anything to do with what Giuliani did. I'm not saying there was definitely no connection, but it is not a slam-dunk by any means

Came up with a lot more than broken windows. This reminds me of Reagan haters who claim that anything but Reagan actually brought down communism.

Are you really saying that Dinkins set all of this up? If True why was crime so high while he was mayor. Look this is boring. Numbers don't lie. Crime dropped dramatically under Rudy. If you want to claim that Dinkins somehow did not manage to actually drop crime while he was in office but is actually responsible for all the drop in crime that is your business I will stay in reality.

"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"

Ronald Reagan

www.proprietornation.blogspot.com

doesn't include considering the evidence, then that's fine. Stay there. I didn't say I necessarily agreed with all of it...I just presented it for consideration. You can hold your ears and chant "I can't hear you" if you like.

I said that broken windows was not his most effective method Freedomnomics talked about it but freedomnomics pointed out the things that he did well as well, it doesn't claim that Dinkins deserves the credit.

"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"

Ronald Reagan

www.proprietornation.blogspot.com

"I think he will focus on being a tax cutter, limiting government and being a terror warrior."

I think Rudy will "compromise" on a tax increase, allow government to grow further, and fight the war on terror as best as he is able (like Bush but without the subtlety).

At least he's electable.

"Did you just try to use who he voted for in 1972 as proof he is liberal? I think that is a bunch of nonsense, with all due respect."

Only a liberal (or worse) would have voted for George McGovern. I realize that many people have grown up since then, but it does at least point out that he was a liberal (or worse) in 1972.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

He didn't change in THOSE 20 years, so what happened in the last 15?

Serious question; he wouldn't be the only man in the race to claim a significant change of heart.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

I don't know why he chose one over the other and I don't care.

AGain, it is not very persuasive to say that I should ignore Rudy's plethora of accomplishments especially compared to Fred's total lack of accomplishments because Rudy endorsed Cuomo for Governor once. I don't care.

What I know is that he was an effective, extremely effective prosecutor, and then he was an extremely effective mayor, and Fred was a mediocre Senator and a mediocre actor, and yet, you think I should vote for Fred because Rudy endorsed the wrong person for governor in 1992.

With all due respect to all the Fred heads here, you haven't made much of a case for him being President, besides that you agree with him more than anyone else. There are a lot of people with a conservative philosophy. That is not hard to find. It is hard to find a proven leader and Rudy is that. You would rather vote for a guy that frankly doesn't even come close to the resume of a President because he generally agrees with you, and overlook someone with exactly the resume of a great President because he doesn't agree with you enough. Does that seem sound?

"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"

Ronald Reagan

www.proprietornation.blogspot.com

If I wanted to vote for liberals I would be a Democrat. Is that really hard to understand?

And it's PERFECTLY sound that I want to vote for a guy who will do the RIGHT things. You know who else has a track record of a good prosecutor and leader? Eliot Spitzer. I won't vote for him, either.

Ultimately I think it shows a progressive worldview to say that the guy who has the record of Getting Things Done™ the best who needs to be in office, regardless of his actuall policy positions.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

vote for who you want. I don't think the Presidency is an entry level position and Thompson has entry level credentials, and an ineffective President is useless no matter what he believes.

"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"

Ronald Reagan

www.proprietornation.blogspot.com

Have fun spitting on the Reagan legacy with your abortion on demand candidate.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

Pataki wasn't given much of a chance. Rudy's decision was tactical as much as anything else. Rudy was elected mayor in Nov 1993 and when he took office on January 1, 1994 the city was an economic basket case. The institutional arrangements in NY are such that the governor and state legislature have a considerable say in the city's financial affairs, as they provide a good deal of the city's funding.

In Nov 1994 Pataki won on a cut-spending, smaller government platform, which resonated unexpectedly with NY voters in the year of the Contract with America. Later he morphed into a big spender, while Rudy was successful in cutting taxes and spending. Go figure.

Minor parties in NYC play both ideological and practical roles which often conflict with one another. The Liberals have supported Republicans if they don't like the Democratic nominee for some reason. In the 50's and 60's, there was the issue of the residual influence of Tammany Hall on the city's Democratic machine. So backing Republican John Lindsay in 1965 was a reaction against the boss-plagued record of the Democrats under Mayor Wagner- it was a "goo-goo" move- i.e. good government, anti-corruption reform.

(Historical note- John Lindsay lost the Republican primary in 1969 because the city's voters were mad at the poor performance of the Department of Sanitation during the winter blizzards of that year. He won on the Liberal line in Nov propelled by euphoria over the Mets' World Series win and lackluster Republican and Democratic opponents.)

In 1993 it was clear that the city was on the ropes due to both the recession on Wall Street and its escalating crime & welfare problems. I suspect the Liberals opted for Rudy out of naked self interest as the Democratic incumbent, David Dinkins, had proved totally ineffective as mayor. For Rudy, it was a tactical move - it allowed him to pull some support from voters who are allergic to the Republican label.

Arianna Huffington was once a conservative and a lot more recently than 1972. What is your point?

Ronald Reagan was a registered Democrat for a long time and much closer to his first election as President than what you are all pointing out right now to try and attack Rudy with.

"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"

Ronald Reagan

www.proprietornation.blogspot.com

When did he see the light? He doesn't seem to have changed his position on much to me.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

aggressive foreign policy, yeah, he is a Clinton liberal.

Have you looked at his health care plan? Does that sound liberal to you? Have you looked at his plan to secure the border? Does that sound liberal to you?

Tell me, what history does Thompson have of cutting taxes, not talking about it, but actually cutting them. None, Rudy has plenty of history of cutting taxes. He has plenty of history of being tough on criminals. He has plenty of history of limiting government. Thompson has no history. He only talks about what he wants to do. He has never done any of it.

You want to vote for President on faith, that is your business. I am voting for President based on accomplishment and a history of getting things done.

Frankly, I believe that my reasoning is a lot more sound.

"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"

Ronald Reagan

www.proprietornation.blogspot.com

Most of us grew up.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

He we go with the misinformation about "assault weapons". This is where Rudy scares us gun owners.

The last assault weapons ban didn't ban the "assault weapons" you are thinking of (machine guns). It banned features on rifles that looked mean (ie not a machine gun). Most of those M16 looking guns (keeping it simple for you anti-2a ppl) you can buy at some gun stores are still semi-autos (ie one shot per trigger pull).

In order to buy a fully automatic machine gun, one must have a class 3 license as the law stands now. Be prepared to spend some money and be grilled by the ATF. Not many people have class 3 licenses.

With a Bullet! So to speak.

"I'm in favor of an assault weapons ban for national security in order to protect against a terrorist attack using assault weapons."

Honest to God, this is one of the dumbest statements I have ever read on RedState that wasn't about returning to the gold standard.

BTW, for extra credit, can you tell me what an assault weapon is?

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

he isn't being nominated to the Supreme Court. John Edwards was extremely successful as a lawyer, and he is not fit to be President as a result of that success.

There is a huge difference between arguing and managing and leading. While Fred Thompson maybe a true blue Conservative he has absolutely no history of being able to apply those conservative principles in any manner. Rudy does.

I don't want a great lawyer as President, I want a great leader. Rudy has proven that his leadership skills are exemplary, Thompson has not.

"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"

Ronald Reagan

www.proprietornation.blogspot.com

What was Abe Lincoln, a mediocre lawyer?

Fiscal Conservatives have a less to lose riding on their cause than socially conservatives do. I'm for cutting taxzes and reigning in the size of government, but the fact is to simply ignore the abortion genocide for 8 years of the Guiliani Presidency is something that is a major blow. Combine that with the fact that Rudy said you can be a strict constructionist and be Pro-RVW, there is a serious concern thar Rudy could strike the death blow to the pro-life movement with an appointment of the 5th pro choice judge instead of delivering another Roberts and Alito and driving the nial into the coffin of RVW. Not negating your cause, but to ask somone to suckit up an ignore human lives being destroyed as opposed to ignore your taxes being raised and spending going up whihc can and will be fixed, you can't bring the dead children back. They don't have 8 years to get their lives saved. This is the year where aboriotn can go back to the states and we can move the fight to the sttewide level and actual start to save some children's lives.

We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war.-Ann Coulter
Thompson/Coulter 08!

We ALL want the same kind of guy in there, for the most part. The guys who are best at cutting taxes and removing programs tend to be the same ones who are best at fighting judges and being unbending on life.

Just look at the spectrum from a Coburn (strong on the budget, strong on life) to a McCain (mushy on taxes, mushy on life witnessed by his brief pro-Roe trial baloon), to a Specter (bad on everything).

We all just need to nominate someone who pleases us all. Party unity is the path to victory in 2008.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

McCain and Coburn are on the same end of the spectrum on Pork. And it is far to the "right" of Thompson, Giuliani or Romney.

And after Bush's embrace of Pork Culture, McCain looks like a breathe of fresh air.

All the candidates have pluses and minuses. But I've gotten really sick of the "My Issue Is More Important than Yours" and "You Should Vote for My Guy But I Won't Vote for Yours." Fiscal conservatives have been out of power for a long time. Many have been bailing on the party. But a true anti-porker like McCain is trashed while status quo Rs like Thompson are lauded.

I'm close to blocking out the opinions of those who shun allies to embrace opponents (i.e. thinking Hillary is better than Giuliani). I don't see how they are any different from Christine Todd Whitman.

______________________________________
Bobby Jindal Saves Louisiana

Well that's the thing, when you let a miniscule portion of the budget become a defining spending issue for you, you're going to come to some odd conclusions.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

Since you hate embracing the opponent, please tell me you oppose a guy like Rudy Giuliani given that shining moment when he endorsed Mario Cuomo for Governor over George Pataki?

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

first, I don't think that either Pataki or Cuomo get much love on this site.

Second, Fred has no experience, none, in any leadership role. Rudy is not only experienced but accomplished in multiple roles of leadership and I am supposed to forego my vote for Rudy because of who he endorsed for governor in 1992. I am supposed to overlook everything he has accomplished, and overlook that Fred has actually accomplished nothing, because of who Rudy endorsed for governor in 1992. Are you serious?

"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"

Ronald Reagan

www.proprietornation.blogspot.com

He claims a strict constructionist judge can uphold Roe v. Wade, suggesting he'll deliberately appoint more judges like David Souter and Sandra Day O'Connor.

He professes support for strict gun control.

He used to fight for New York City's 'sanctuary city' law.

He claims there's a Constitutional right for taxpayer-funded abortions.

Liberal Republicans aren't liberal enough for him, so he sometimes endorses Democrats to get all the way left.

He has zero, zip, el zilcho experience and track record setting national and foreign policy.

His support for abortion threatens to demotivate some of our most energetic activists (let me know when 'fiscal conservatives' start having rallies like Dobson's Justice Sundays).

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

by Miguel Estrada. That should say everything you need to know. His foreign policy team is headed by John Podheretz. That should say everything you need to know. Again, I don't think he is going to spend much time in his administration trying to get federally funded abortions available. I really don't think he will do that.

He has proposed a plan for securing the border. He has a proven track record cracking down and finding criminals.

Look, if your arguement is that I should overlook everything he has accomplished as proof that he is capable of leading because he supported McGovern in 1972 and Cuomo in 1992, then frankly, I am not even close to sold.

I am supposed to back Thompson who has accomplished nothing besides getting rich, while overlooking a proven leader like Rudy. Again, I am not even close to sold.

"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"

Ronald Reagan

www.proprietornation.blogspot.com

I don't flipping care what his 'team' is made up of. I care who HE is, what HE stands for, and what HE will do in office.

It's not the 'team' who submits a name to the Congress. It's the President who does it. "It all comes down to the man behind the desk." -- George H. W. Bush.

And I suggest you do some research on FDT before making false claims, especially ones that make you sound like an envious socialist.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

but he will choose someone else. Yeah, that seems likely.

Again, you want to vote for a guy that frankly has accomplished little of substance in his life, and certainly not the type of person that is generally fit to be President, and you overlook someone with exactly the sort of qualifications to be President, because the first person agrees with you more.

The worst part is that the issues with which you disagree with Rudy on are not going to be in any meaningful way a part of his admin. Do you really think he is going to spend much time trying to ban guns, fund abortions, and institute gay marriage. No, he won't.

He will spend his time lowering taxes, limiting governmet, and fighting terror and crime, and I know he will be effective because he has a track record of being effective, whereas Fred Thompson was apparently a really good lawyer.

"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"

Ronald Reagan

www.proprietornation.blogspot.com

I did not know about Cuomo. (yuck!!!) n/t

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

I'd vote for Hillary Clinton. After all, she's the only one in the race who spent 8 years as Co-President of the United States. That experience trumps being a mayor any day of the week. If not her, I'd vote for one of the governors in the race. That kind of experience still beats Rudy's as mayor.

But it really doesn't matter all that much. Where they stand on the issues is much more important than what their resume looks like.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

and a total of six years in public office. Anyone who applied for a job with me and starting talking about her husband's résumé would not get very far.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

Knowledge of the subject is not relevant. A president would have no shortage of information. The President needs to make decisions. With no executive experience we can't know about someone's ability to do that.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

There's only one man alive who has the qualification you seek: executive experience making foreign and domestic policy, while still being eligible to run for President.

James Earl Carter.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

HW only served one term, so he's still eligible.

___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

I even QUOTED him in this thread, that was bad

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

Quentin, I know we disagree on the relative importance to the Commander in Chief of execuitive experience vs. experience/insight in foreign policy, national security and military matters (as we fight two wars and GWOT, and face numerous other major threats such as Iran seeking nukes and spreading its influence), and I respect your view and I don't think it's at all unreasonable, but isn't it a bit of an overstatement to say that the latter is "not relevant"? Are you really suggesting that such experience adds nothing substantial to the quality of related decisions, or were you exaggerating a bit for rhetorical purposes?

As Neil points out above, almost no-one has experience of foreign policy or national security. What some people have is knowledge of the issues. It is reasonable to assume that a senator with suitable committee assignments (such as Hillary Clinton) will have knowledge of these issues. A governor or mayor may not. (Although, of course, they may. Very little of the information is limited to senators.)

Experience relevant for being President is executive experience. That means having information presented to you, access to the best experts, and then making a decision. The evidence seems to be that this executive experience is broadly transferrable. People with business experience and state governors have tended to find they can transfer those skills to the presidency. There is almost no sample base to analyse of legislators transferring to the presidency without at least some executive experience in the meantime. Of the three serving members of congress (both houses combined) who have been elected President none completed a single term. Lincoln, though not a serving congressman when elected ran with that as his most senior job, and he did extraordinarily well.

But, existing knowledge of a subject is irrelevant. Whoever becomes President will be facing issues he or she has never had to deal with before. But the President has access to the best information there is, and can appoint top level advisors and cabinet members. Information is not going to be the problem. An inability to make good decisions would be a problem.

Experience is far from the only factor one should look at. Leadership skills and policy positions are also fundamental - or we would be looking at a Thompson vs Richardson race, and I am not talking about Fred.

But in terms of experience I would say the following count as first rank experience:

Running a major government (state or big city)
Running a major buiness
Running a government department
A very senior military command

Second rank experience might include a leadership position in a legislature.

Beyond that, I would argue that having held positions at both state and federal level is an advantage. This is one reason I rate Obama's experience as being superior to that of Clinton or Edwards.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

at being President when they assume the office. The same is true of mayors and governors. The Founders would be aghast at the power and importance the President has in our electronic media driven world. What was contemplated as a purely ministerial office has become "The Leader of the Free World." We can argue about whether this should be the role - I don't think so, but it is.

It seems to me that the most important quality is some almost impossible to objectify trait of "leadership" or "command presence," a major component of which is personal confidence. The two candidates that I believe most exemplify that trait are Guliani and Fred Thompson; both wear the "habit of command" naturally and effortlessly. There's not likely to be another Reagan for a while, but both are worthy inheritors of his commanding style. I don't add Romney to this group because I cannot convince myself that he is at all genuine. He doesn't have WJC's character flaws, but he seems to me every bit as much of a political contrivance.

If a leader has the confidence to surround him/herself with confident and competent people, by the time a decision comes to him, the differences between options are either stark questions of character and courage or a matter of a coin toss. No one thing on one's resume prepares one for the former and anyone could make the latter.

I don't share the SoCon's reservations about Guliani's ideological stances. First, the President has only the most limited power over many of these issues, and, second, RG was a big city mayor with very limited policy powers; he had limited authority to make law and a duty to carry out the law as he found it and in the manner most beneficial to his city. My great fear with RG is that I know what kind of people he had to deal with in order to govern that city and what kind of things one has to do in order to get along with them. If he did anything untoward, you can be sure the Ds know all about it and are just waiting for the right moment.

Thompson has a studied ease that is very reminicent of Reagan. He is very facile and articulate - a good communicator; something we desperately need. That said, he doesn't have Reagan's SAG experience or the experience of two terms as Governor of our largest state. That said, some people are natural leaders, some people learn leadership, and some natural leaders learn the "habit of command" by leading.

We'll see how the crucible of a campaign tests these three men: Can Guliani become someone who can represent a governing coalition of the Nation rather than just NYC; can FDT show that he is really what he seems or is he just his L&O character delivering well-written lines; and, is Romney real?

It's going to be an interesting year!

In Vino Veritas

You mention the power of the President over ideological issues and allude to who makes the law (ie. Congress). It is pretty apparent that the GOP isn't going to be taking back Congress in 2008, barring some huge turnaround in public attitude/perception, so I believe we must assume a Dem House/Senate. And if that's the case, there's a fair chance that the President will see bills cross his (her?) desk that influence social issues such as abortion or gay marriage. A GOP president with latent liberal tendencies is liable to sign those. A situation like that has little to do with his commitment to nominate constitutionalist judges, etc. Just because a President doesn't make law doesn't mean he has no significant influence over whether certain laws are passed. Eventually, his personal beliefs will come into play.

I disagree that knowledge of foreign policy, national security and military matters is "not relevant" to being Commander in Chief, particular in time of multiple war and numerous major threats from around the world. These matters are complex, and advisors often offer conflicting advice (and sometimes the urgency of a decision precludes schooling the President on everything that would be conducive to a decision more likely to be the best one), and it helps if the Commander in Chief has (1) a core understanding of the fundamentals of these matters, and (2) a substantive familiarity with relevant history and facts from a number of the many perspectives that are relevant to these decisions, and (3) a resulting foundation of knowledge, insight, and judgment to aid in decision-making.

Let me put it this way: Let's say you have two candidates and NEITHER one has any executive experience (or they have equal executive experience), but one has spent much of his career advising president's on national security, foreign policy and military matters. Are you saying that, other things equal, you wouldn't think the latter would be more likely to any significant extent to make better decisions on related matters?

I'm not disputing here your general view that executive experience is more important than knowledge in these matters, just your conention that it's completely irrelevant, which seems like an overstatement to me.

you ask "but one has spent much of his career advising president's on national security, foreign policy and military matters. Are you saying that, other things equal, you wouldn't think the latter would be more likely to any significant extent to make better decisions on related matters?"

Well, it depends on the kind of advice that person gave. There have been in our recent history foreign policy experts who were wrong about nearly everything in their adult likes. Mostly democrats like Strobe Talbot, but a few Republicans also, like for instance IMHO Jim Baker.
Having spent time around so called "experts" both in academic settings and in in industry. I must say I am not impressed with anyones credentials. I am much more impressed with practical experience and their ideology.

Where are their ideas coming from? If you have a flawed basic understanding of the situation or of people's motives then your learning will lead you into darkness not light.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

Here, as in our discussion of economics, you show no understanding of the phrase "other things equal". And I certainly have no "problem with expertism" (lol), nor is our previous discussion of how to use expert opinion on a particular question of economonics (the relationship between particular types of tax cuts under particular conditions and the directional net impact on revenues) relevant to this discussion here in any meaningful way.

By the way, physicians sometimes give bad advice. Does that mean their knowledge is useless to you? I assume you never consult a physician, much less attach any weight to what he would suggest, lest you be guilty of a "problem with expertism". Same with a mechanic for your car (assuming you knew he was honest -- let's say he's your brother and does repairs for you for free). Or any other kind of dreaded "expert". I guess in your world, expertise is worthless. But no, actually you almost certainly don't live your life like that -- without using the advice of experts appropriately -- you just choose to ignore them when you feel like it, like when what they're saying conflicts with a belief that you feel good holding.

typo: meant "economics"

This is good. Presidents should encourage it, and then make decisions.

Second point, don't equate being a mayor or governor with complete ignorance on foreign policy / national security matters. I would think that most people in elected office follow political issues generally quite closely. Just as you and I do. We don't hesitate to spout off on these issues. It is also quite possibly to serve lazily on a Senate committee and never read any of the papers sent to you. Service as a legislator proves almost nothing. Service as an executive proves how someone handles decisions.

I stand by my claim that information is pretty much irrelevant, and judgement is almost everything. Presidents can get information. If they lack the character or temperament to make decisions then their presidency will be a disaster.

But, if you posit a situation in which all other factors - executive experience, policy positions, apparent leadership ability - net as equal, I would be happy to take existing knowledge of national security (or another critical area that presidents have to deal with) as a tie-breaker.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

That's a great reason to vote for Hillary over Giuliani. I'm sure she was adamantly anti-Cuomo.

______________________________________
Bobby Jindal Saves Louisiana

Has any RS regular expressed a desire to vote for her? Come on now.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

If the WORST fiscal criticism you can come up with with respect to Fred Thompson, is that he's soft on pork, then that's a pretty strong defense of the guy.

No surprise, given that CfG seems to like him even.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZmY3MjNhNTA5NGU0MTIxMTUwM...

Especially the Wellstone amendment.

BCRA is easily the big knock on him, but it's not a fiscal policy knock on him, which is what I said in the comment you failed to finish reading before you replied.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

I'm hitting those who say "If My Guy Doesn't Win, I Will Jump Ship"

I may vote for Thompson in the primary. But the incessant single issue anti-Giuliani hatred is making me more likely to vote for him. If people don't understand the difference between an ally and a committed opponent / enemy, that's very worrisome.

______________________________________
Bobby Jindal Saves Louisiana

it is just another derangement syndrome and the plans of losers.

Molon Labe!

I count several. That's the problem with Rudy. There's no way I could support him in the primary considering how wrong he is on several important issues. On most of the rest of the important issues, nobody really knows where he stands. That's not much of a reason to vote for the guy.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Anyone who opposes RG is just some hick from the country who's uptight about god, gays, and guns.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

Let's take a basic qualification: adherence to the party platform. One guy passes the test much better than the other.

Let's take another: a proven track record of mainstream Republican policymaking for national issues. One guy passes the test much better than the other.

How about the ability to unite different factions of the party together? Again, the difference is clear.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

Yes, Fred is much closer to the party platform based on what I've read. I am fully convinced of that.

Yes, Fred would knit the party together more closely just simply due to Rudy's liberal leanings on key issues.

However, if we want to pull together Democrats and Republicans once on the job, Rudy may be more successful. Of course, this is simply based on his actions in NY.

But always lurking based on what we see Democrats do with Bush...whichever Republican wins the election...IS THE DEVIL! :)

someone that brings the party together, however the same people that say Rudy is only running on electability are now claiming that he couldn't pull the party together. Nonsense, I say. He could pull the party together, but more importantly. I want to vote for the most qualified candidate.

Frankly, based on that there is no comparison, Rudy is far more qualified.

"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"

Ronald Reagan

www.proprietornation.blogspot.com

I want to vote for the most qualified candidate. Frankly, based on that there is no comparison, Rudy is far more qualified.

Then you want to vote for Romney or Huckabee. Running the country is a lot more like running a state than it is like running a city.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

it isn't like most cities. I am not merely talking about experience but accomplishments. Do you think that Huckabee was a more accomplished governor than Rudy was an accomplished mayor and prosecutor before that?

Romney has plenty of accomplishments as well though I would stack up Rudy's and I think he comes out on top, and he didn't suddenly transform into a conservative just in time to run for President. That also bothers me about Romney. I don't think that his positions are that genuine. Rudy didn't suddenly become pro life just in time to run for President.

"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"

Ronald Reagan

www.proprietornation.blogspot.com

You reject the guy who has eight years of national headline-making leadership as Governor of Massachusetts, because he became a conservative leader too recently for your tastes, yet back the guy who NEVER became a conservative ever, because he has lesser executive experience than Romney?

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

Four years in Massachusetts... sorry, I'm flipping between monitoring a nephew playing Wii Golf and this.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

But Romney does have business experience, which is also relevant.

But don't dismiss Rudy for lack of executive experience. New York City has a greater population than Massachusetts and (I think) 43 other states. Its government is a large and complicated organisation.

Do feel free to dismiss him for his policies and your belief that he is unelectable. But he does have top level executive experience.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

It just isn't the only, or even the best, game in town for those who care about experience over everything else.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Yes, we all know Rudy Giuliani has Executive Experience™. The problem is, no matter how much New Yorkers think their city is the center of the world, being Mayor of New York only brings experience dealing with Mayoral matters. Whether 5 people or 5 million, you just don't touch the issues you touch as Governor or even as US Senator.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

and a successful businessman after that, and the one common denominator is he was successful in everything he has been in.

Thompson is apparently a successful lawyer, mediocre Senator, and mediocre actor.

If you are trying to claim that Thompson's six uneventful years in the Senate make him more qualified than Rudy's stint as one of the most successful mayors not only New York history but in the country's history, and this is right after he was one of the most successful prosecutors in the history of the country, and yet Thompson is more qualified, well that is nonsense.

"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"

Ronald Reagan

www.proprietornation.blogspot.com

Please, DO your opposition research before you come out swinging. It really makes you look bad.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

and we can stack them up against Rudy's.

"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"

Ronald Reagan

www.proprietornation.blogspot.com

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

Mary Matalin was on H&C last night and she was asked what I asked you and her response was that she supported Thompson because his values were in line with hers. In other words, she didn't have any accomplishments. He didn't have very many. He lead a couple of investigations and that doesn't impress me compared to Rudy's plethora of accomplishments.

"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"

Ronald Reagan

www.proprietornation.blogspot.com

Fred has experience giving the FBI and CIA the tools they need to fight terrorism effectively (working to amend and pass USA PATRIOT),

He has experience with the federal judiciary,

He has experience with the two trillion dollar federal budget,

He has experience with international trade and treaty ratification,

He has experience evaluating and confirming officers of the executive branch.

He was a United States Senator. That's one of the highest Constitutional offices there is. If you choose to scoff, then well, that's just your cynicism.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

in other words, he was one of one hundred people and he voted on these issues. That is not exactly a decision maker and a President must be a decision maker.

Rudy wasn't simply mayor. The point I am making is he accomplished things as mayor.

Unlike Thompson, I don't need to use nebulus terms like "He has experience with the federal judiciary,"

Rudy cut crime, a lot. He cut taxes a lot. He cut government a lot.

He convicted a lot of bad guys, including many mafioso before he did all of these other things.

The experience you have for Fred is he has a lot of experience with the federal judiciar, and what did he accomplish. Nothing.

There is a reason why most Senators don't wind up President, especially mediocre ones. There is a huge difference between being one of one hundred, and being the one in charge. Not only was Rudy in charge but he was effective.

"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"

Ronald Reagan

www.proprietornation.blogspot.com

It would help if you gave examples of the kinds of issues a governor deals with that a mayor of NYC does not.

In general, governors have to balance rural, suburban, and urban interests. Governors set policy on issues that cities just have to accept as given, since city governments exist at the whim of the sovereign state.

Notable example: death penalty. The Mayor of New York's exposure to that issue is getting up and talking about it on television. A prosecutor just gets to enforce the laws on the books. A governor has to decide whether to support or oppose it, then has the opportunity to commute death sentences, placing him far beyond anything Giuliani had to deal with.

Looking at the Constitution of New York, the state dictates to the cities on matters such as marriage, divorce, gambling. The governor serves as commander-in-chief of the state militia. Here's the key clause of the NY Constitution though. Article IX, Section 2 (a)(1):

[The legislature] Shall enact, and may from time to time amend, a statute of local governments granting to local governments powers including but not limited to those of local legislation and administration in addition to the powers vested in them by this article. A power granted in such statute may be repealed, diminished, impaired or suspended only by enactment of a statute by the legislature with the approval of the governor at its regular session in one calendar year and the re-enactment and approval of such statute in the following calendar year.

At the state level you deal with the state schools system, in this case the University of the State of New York.

The state level deals with state nature preserves, canals, and taxation.

It's a lengthy document though, pretty messy. Written in 1938, so that's the Democrats for you I presume.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

Fred Thompson have experience dealing with?

And Presidents deal with foreign policy which governors don't deal with. There is no exact replica for the Presidency. There are differences between all of these things, however Rudy has not only experience but accomplishment as a manager and a leader, and frankly Thompson doesn't.

That is why I support Rudy over Thompson. Though, I can still be persuaded, though I will say that defending him in this thread has made me more entrenched.

"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"

Ronald Reagan

www.proprietornation.blogspot.com

You also have to deal with a very partisan bicameral (in most states) legislature that is a whole lot more like Congress than is the NYC city council. You also also have a budget that passes through lots and lots of funds to other political entities that are not in your control, just like the Federal budget has. There's a lot more micromanaging that can be done at the city level than at the state or Federal level. You also have to deal with a state judicial system that isn't too different than the Federal version.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

and again, Thompson has dealt with none of it. Rudy dealt with a liberal legislature and still limited the size of government, cut crime, taxes, and in most ways improved the city of New York. There is no replica for President. There are plenty of things a President must do that governors don't do, namely foreign policy. That is not the point. The point is that in everything Rudy has been in business, prosecutor, mayor he was effective.

Unlike Thompson, he enacted conservative principles. Thompson only talks about enacting these principles.

"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"

Ronald Reagan

www.proprietornation.blogspot.com

I already said I am not particularly concerned about experience. Even if I were, Rudy would not be the guy, since his experience is inferior to Romney's and Huckabee's. I'm much more concerned about where the candidate stands on the issues. Rudy's enthusiastic support of gun control is enough to lose my vote in the primary. Heck, he even sued the gun manufacturers... so I guess we know where he stands on frivolous lawsuits as well.

There is no replica for President.

Maybe you can point out where anyone said that a Governor's duties are exactly the same as a President's duties. The question was, which experience is more valuable?

There are plenty of things a President must do that governors don't do, namely foreign policy.

And mayors conduct their own foreign policy?

The point is that in everything Rudy has been in business, prosecutor, mayor he was effective.

He was effective compared to other big city mayors. He was effective in turning a pretty lousy situation into a much less lousy situation. Let's not go overboard, though. It's not some small-government low-tax utopia. His great accomplishments there have to be kept in perspective. I would certainly not want to use NYC as the blueprint for the United States.

I don't care for the prosecutorial experience all that much. I'd rather he not even have it. It will only make him more sympathetic towards increased law enforcement powers. The leader of the executive branch already leans far enough in that direction. Anyway, it's certainly not a reason for me to vote for someone in the primary.

The fact that he got involved in business after making a name for himself in politics is worth exactly nothing. Is there anybody who gets out of politics that doesn't get into some kind of business?
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

I can't vote for two people. I like Rudy over Romney because I see Rudy's accomplishments to be more extensive and because I don't buy Romney's sudden conversion. If Romney comes out of the primaries I will wholeheartedly back him over any other candidate, democrat or third party.

"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"

Ronald Reagan

www.proprietornation.blogspot.com

Would you vote for Fred Thompson over, say, Mike Bloomberg?

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

short of Ron Paul I would vote for just about anyone out of the Rep field over any democrat or third party candidate.

"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"

Ronald Reagan

www.proprietornation.blogspot.com

We both have our priorities, and we'll see who has the majority come Convention time.

Take care, sir,

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

If Bloomberg were running as a Republican (with his current positions) for the nomination against Thompson, who would you support?
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

how many taxes did he cut, when did he limit the size of government anywhere, when did he lower crime anywhere.

If a proven track record of Republican policy making is your test, then in terms of actually accomplishing something Rudy wins hands down.

Again, just because you believe in lower taxes, smaller government, less crime, strong foreign policy, doesn't mean you will be able to effectively produce those policies. Rudy doesn't just believe in them, but has a track record of accomplishing them.

"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"

Ronald Reagan

www.proprietornation.blogspot.com

The title was a play on words-I think he can and will beat the Wicked Witch. The unelectable is coming from his opponenets who see us neednig to move to the center or left in order to win the Presidency. I'm a proud FredHead.

We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war.-Ann Coulter
Thompson/Coulter '08!

I was starting to worry about ya for a minute there! I agree, I think this idea that we need to elect someone who's liberal on social issues is a mis-guided view on what the majority really wants. Heck if that were the case, I think the Libertarians would have a lot more clout.

www.scottbomb.com
Click here to donate to the Fred Thompson campaign.

Molon Labe!

With no evidence is very Kos like. Rudy is a small government and he has actually governed as such. Thompson talks about it and has never accomplished anything.

"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"

Ronald Reagan

www.proprietornation.blogspot.com

Huckabee is also a leader on being a tax hiker, something I'm less worried about with FDT. I like Huckabee, and right now he's my second choice, but his fiscal record is quite poor, IMO.

We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war.-Ann Coulter
Thompson/Coulter '08

They agree with what I've been saying for some time. I especially liked the first one.

The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.