Why I'm currently leaning toward Rudy Guliani for President
Guliani to Hillary: 'Stop This Blame Thing', Newsmax, Thursday, September 28, 2006
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/9/27/200759.shtml?s=al&promo_code=262E-1
Because this is what leadership looks like.
If the smartest people won't run because Americans don't like to be challenged to think, enough, and because political folks play too many games with personal histories, then I have to choose amongst the people with hats in the ring.
And Rudy is the best candidate, thusfar, by my lights. Barak Obama would be a better Democratic candidate, I think, if he would run. And I, for one, would support a Bill Bradley second run. As I would of Dick Lugar of Indiana, if he would run.
But Rudy's major strength as a Presidential candidate is that he knows what leadership in a crisis looks like.
Here is my picture in contrast between Rudy Guliani and Hillary Clinton.
When 9/11, Rudy got on the ground and was trying to figure out how he could help, especially considering the weight of his office.
When Hurricane Katrina his, Senator Hillary Clinton, representing one of the most powerful states in the Union, decided her most important task was to start a commission investigating the Bush Administration.
Rudy, like Bill Clinton, just has the instincts of a leader.
And Hillary Clinton just has the instincts of a party operative.
And that's why she doesn't deserve to be President, at this point, as far as I'm concerned.
There's much more to this conversation.
But I have bathroom duty to attend to:).
Love,
Ben
2 comments:
I'm not sticking up for Hillary, but I can't see backing Rudy, either. That's a lot more complicated than the 911 blame game, though... and that's what I want to address.
Neither of them is a leader with respect to the blame issue, in my estimation.
Bush people say "Clinton sucked"
Clinton people say "Bush sucked"
Useless conversation, sure. Finger pointing, etc.
Rudy says, "Terrorists suck."
Great, he's not blaming individual leadership. However, his response indicates that he also doesn't really have the nuts and/or sense to turn his eyes toward our own policies and how much of 911 was really what brother Malcom might have called chicken roosting.
I'll say "leader" when I see someone willing to really look at "us" and them and how it all ends up with planes knocking buildings over.
Later,
CDB
That's totally fair, Carson. And I don't necessarily think that Rudy is engaging in some heaving thinking about the process.
I just like the fact that he's keyed in on a huge part of the problem when it comes to U.S. policy development vis a vis terrorism, Iraq, etc. Which is too many people involved in blame games and scoring political points and not enough concerned about getting to better answers, policies, decisions, etc.
Ideally, I'd vote for Joe Nye or Madeleine Albright or David Gergen or Fracis Fukuyama. But America will never get those people to run for office until they start behaving better during elections and expecting better of their thinking and of themselves.
So then I'm choosing between people who are at least demonstrate a commitment in that direction and people who are not.
Barak Obama would qualify for me because he's been fairly thoughtful. When Hillary villified around Katrina, Barak was thinking deeper, talking about the complexities of race and poverty in the situation and cooling the heat from Hillary's march to an investigation (which was either cynical or politically-driven, neither of which speak well of her leadership instincts in a crisis).
Rudy, on the other hand, when 9/11 hit, was on the ground and putting together people who could deal with the crisis. It's a pretty important quality of a political leader, I think, to be able to do that. And Rudy just did a better job, I think.
Rudy's crime policies in New York were harsh and his attitudes towards NY smut shops were repressive. But he's also gay-friendly and pro-choice. For policy reasons rather than any particular fetish for guns (I've never owned one) I don't like his favoring gun control, but at least his priorities are in the right place I always say when it comes to drugs and guns. If you're going to control one, at least contol the one that's a real danger. I still think it's a mistake to do it, but it tells me that Rudy is no absolutist. And that's what I like about him.
Hillary could win back my trust. But she'd have to earn it.
Even in the world of lesser evils that cynics try to take advantage of, there's still lesser of the evils. That's why it's probably still a good idea to be the candidate whose most on the up and up, for real not out of some self-righteous notion of your right to power, rather than playing to your base.
George Bush's presidency is an excellent example of someone burning themselves with a calculated mix. And I think Hillary should deal with the consequences of playing the mix, as well, until she can get more honest.
I have no illusions that Rudy is a saint. But, as of now, I think he's more honest than Hillary:).
Ben
Post a Comment