Yes but it will thin out very quickly. Romney can't sustain the support he currently shows in Iowa and New Hampshire unless he can make himself considerably more appealing that he has managed to be so far. Even his greatest admirers usually concede that he is too slick and too packaged to seem entirely trustworthy. As the polling data so far indicates the great majority of Republican voters are going to choose somebody else when they judge him alongside their other choices. Oddly. Mitt Romney gives me new insight into Bill Clinton's career. I always used to wonder how much of Clinton's appeal such as it was depended on his flaws rather than his strengths. Could Clinton have been so charming to so many without the selfishness the total lack of self-discipline the sexual incontinence the dishonesty the flabby physique and the swollen nose? Did he depend on his repulsive and dysfunctional traits to humanize him?
:Specifically we must:- First continue to tighten economic sanctions.- Second impose diplomatic isolation on Iran's Government.- Third have Arab states join this effort to prevent a nuclear Iran.- Fourth make it clear that while nuclear capabilities may be a source of pride it can also be a source of peril. The military option remains on the table.- Fifth integrate our strategy into a broader approach to the broader Muslim world--including working with our NATO allies and with progressive Muslim communities and leaders to build a partnership for prosperity. This is drivel.
If Giulliani's supporters insist on shattering the Republican coalition and as a result. Hillary wins they should blame their own arrogance not the petulance of others. Giuliani had a clear chance to unify the Republican coalition and step forward as it's natural leader. If at the outset of his campaign he argued forcefully that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and needs to be overturned. Republicans could have had confidence that he would stand with society's defenders and against the vandals. Henry Clay once said he would rather be right than President. Giuliani would rather be wrong about Roe than President and by now his choice is irrevocable. Apparently Rudy doesn't understand that Roe is a travesty which puts him squarely on the wrong side of the culture war. For both moral and political reasons. Republicans can't choose him as their nominee. But isn't Rudy so tough on terrorism that voters will flock to him? No he isn't. Giuliani has given no indication on the campaign trail that he has an especially clear understanding of our strategic situation. Nor has he given any indication that he will be particularly forceful in dealing with our enemies. Once again the acid test is what he has to say about dealing with Iran. Rudy flunks that test even more dramatically than Romney does. At least Romney is talking about the subject however ineptly. When Giuliani talks about the "War on Terror" he says we need to "stay on offense," which presupposes that we have been on offense. We haven't. We have been trying to fight a limited proxy war in Iraq and avoid taking the fight directly to the enemy's center of gravity. That isn't offense. It isn't smart either but that's another subject for another time. When Rudy mentions Iran at all he gives no hint that he understands that one way or another the road to victory leads through Tehran. He says as does George W. Bush that Iran can't be allowed to have nuclear weapons. Like the President he never says how we are going to stop Iran from getting them. Giuliani has very little foreign policy experience and he seems to be in thrall to the same establishment groupthink on the subject that has largely paralyzed the Bush administration. Giuliani was level-headed on September 11. That doesn't make him a latter-day Patton or LeMay. Fred Thompson is quite different from the other candidates. The conventional critiques of his candidacy all say much more about his strengths than his weaknesses. Just as with Reagan.
That just may have been the quote of the year for 2007. Fred with his non-managerial background is the only candidate of either party who seems to get this. Much ink has been wasted making the obvious point that Thompson is not an "outsider." After a long career in Washington as a staffer and Senator as a lawyer and a lobbyist Fred Thompson is as well connected as any "insider" here. But for his entire career Thompson has stood outside the bipartisan consensus that when it comes to government activity more is better. His commitment to governmental modesty is most often expressed as concern for the principle of federalism. That commitment put him on the short end of some very lopsided votes as a Senator. Thompson's view on the proper scope of federal government activities is neither shallow nor passing. It has deep roots and he can defend them against heavyweight attacks. At National Review Online last spring. Ramesh Ponnuru some federalist positions Thompson took as a Senator. Thompson wrote a which dismantled Ponnuru's arguments. Ponnuru's was both snarky and beside the point. It came as close to sputtering incoherence as it is possible to come in print. Ramesh Ponnuru is no fool. The man who can beat him like a rented mule in a battle of the keyboards thoroughly understands the subject of their dispute. Thompson's commitment to governmental modesty makes him the only serious candidate for president who isn't part of the bipartisan Party of Government. He is the only candidate qualified to build on the success of Ronald Reagan and the only candidate who can counter the Democrat drive for more socialism particularly as it applies to health care. Reagan turned America away from the socialist morass of the 1930's and reconnected us with our deepest political traditions. He reminded us that we don't want a government let alone a President to run the country. Unfortunately his successors never understood this essential pillar of Reagan's success. When George W. Bush perpetrated the atrocious statement that "when somebody hurts government has got to move," the Republican break with Reagan was complete. Fred Thompson isn't Ronald Reagan. But he can restore the Republican Party to Reagan's default settings. He can make the GOP once again the party of the American Revolution and distinguish it sharply from the party of the French. Russian. Chinese and Cuban Revolutions. Does Thompson have the rhetorical skills to be the leader we need? Let's put him to the same test both Romney and Giuliani just flunked. Does Thompson understand that our problem with terrorism is now primarily an Iranian problem? Can he face that problem and discuss it in terms most Americans will understand?Thompson's reaction to General Petraeus' recent testimony before Congress suggests that he can. Before Petraeus said a word everyone knew that our efforts in Iraq have become vastly more successful under his command. Everyone understood that Al Qaeda and Iran's proxies will probably be humiliated in Iraq unless they can adjust to the tactics we are now using with such success. The $64,000 question was this: What is Iran doing to forestall humiliation in Iraq and what will we do to stop them?General Petraeus dropped some very interesting hints on this subject and Thompson zeroed in on them. His statement on the subject was simple and direct: "Gen. Petraeus' report also leaves me even more concerned about Iran's role in Iraq. Iran is headed down a dangerous path and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad must understand that."Thompson reinforced this barely veiled threat with his reaction to a controversy over Ahmadinejad's request to visit Ground Zero while he is in New York to address the UN. He said "I wouldn't let him in the country." He went on to say according to the Dallas Morning News that "the Iranian regime was a threat to Americans and should be dealt with accordingly."At last a candidate who understands that Iran is at war with us and who is willing to speak as though we are at war with Iran. It's a bonus that he speaks in clear declarative sentences and that everything in his manner and appearance demands that you take him seriously. When Thompson speaks the chattering class often sputters that he is too laid back even soporific. People who have never seen him speak themselves often adopt this critique and endlessly repeat the same clichés on various conservative websites - "lackluster," "underwhelming," "tired," "old," "no fire in the belly." Conservatives are hungry for a Hillary slayer and many of them fear that a thoughtful deliberate senior statesman can't possibly play that role. They are wrong that was widely panned as dull. Just because Fred talks slowly doesn't mean he's stupid or uninspiring. Notice that he is saying important things and saying them well. How many politicians can talk about Russell Kirk's The Conservative Mind in terms which indicate that he has both read and understood it? Consider that Fred's calm sensible demeanor permits him to say things that would terrify many ordinary voters coming from someone who seemed less steady. Thompson can say radical things and nobody turns a hair. If any other candidate talked about overhauling social security and the tax code while we fight a global war of which Iraq and Afghanistan are mere outcroppings a substantial part of the electorate would faint dead away. Try to wrap your mind around the reality that coming off like an old coot having a conversation as he whittles next to the pot-bellied stove down at the country store is an excellent way to attract most American voters.
Forex Groups - Tips on Trading
Related article:
http://www.anewtone.com/2007/10/why-fred-thompson-will-win.html
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
