Monday, November 5, 2007

The Next President of the United States of America Part 3

Personally, I think Bill Clinton is one of the best politicians in the world, though I have never and would never vote for him. Nothing seems to sticks to the "Teflon Clintons", no matter how bad it may be. If we learned anything from Bill, it is that not even a major mistake is enough to topple a Clinton. So effectively, Hillary has the best political adviser at her disposal. This means that by her own actions, name recognition, and Bill's advice, she can lose only if she makes a major mistake. Hillary continues to prove this as she avoids taking a stand or decides to alter her statements with the political tide.

The latest example of Hillary twisting in the wind came forth at the latest debate. When Hillary was asked if she was for or against the Governor of New York giving out driver licenses to illegal immigrants, she said at first she was for it. In case you missed it, by proxy she was for it when she said, "… So what Governor Spitzer is trying to do is to fill the vacuum. I believe we need to get back to comprehensive immigration reform because no state, no matter how well intentioned, can fill this gap." She was then rebuked by her colleagues, and in the next breath, she was against such a proposal: "I just want to add that I did not say that it should be done but I certainly recognize what (why) Governor Spitzer is trying to do it, and we have failed, we have failed." Chris Dodd again jumped at the bit, and interjected with, "no, no, no, you said... you said yes, you thought it made sense to do it." Hillary challenged Chris with an outright lie, stating, "no… no I didn't, Chris." I am sorry, but yes …yes you did, Hillary. But why are you so upset about being caught in a lie? It is not news when a Clinton lies, but you're acting like someone just said you broke one of the Ten Commandments. Oh, wait, that was your husband… who you're still married to… who you knew cheated on you… numerous times….

Moving on, she was then asked unequivocally if she supported the New York Governor's plan and she responded with, "This is where everyone plays gotcha. It makes a lot of sense; what is the governor supposed to do?" Then John Edwards hit one out of the park when he wanted to "add something to what Chris Dodd (said because he) didn't want it to go unnoticed." He pointedly stated that, "Unless I missed something, Senator Clinton said two different things in the course of about two minutes." John might not be the most eloquent man on the stage, but his comment really drove home the inconsistency of Hillary's statement. Will this be a negative thing for her? Maybe, but this won't stick to Hillary, nor should this be a complication for her while running for the nomination. Want proof? This 3.5 minute video will show how little people are affected by Hillary and her "two minute flip-flop." Hillary will be representing the democrats for 2008 and we still don't know where she stands.

Rudy may be running as a Republican, but he is not running to the right for the primary. He has been fairly liberal on a number of social issues (immigration, pro-choice, pro-gun control, gay rights). He seems to be running to the center during the primary, and is popular enough with conservatives to get their vote in a general election. Right now, it looks like Republicans will take anyone who qualifies as Republican so long as they think that person can beat Hillary and/or Obama. I can't shake the feeling that Rudy isn't running to the center from the right, rather he is actually left of center. He may be just slightly right on some issues, but the social inconsistencies make me very hesitant. Rudy became America's Mayor in September 2001, and is now a household name. He passes as a Republican, and handles the spotlight well. He may not be the best Republican by his record, but I think he can hold his own against Hillary. As I have said, he is a bit liberal and Republicans just won't vote for Hillary. This is a very attractive combination for a Republican running for election in 2008. Conservative Democrats and independents will vote for Rudy and maybe he can capture the moderate and slightly liberal independents. There are some good points to draw the conservatives closer to him during the general election; he is tough on crime, and that may transpose to a tough military leader. Rudy was about getting the job done when he ran New York City, and that might be an approach that would work well with Iraq and also the war on terror. If Rudy is half as tough running our military, there is a good chance he can end the current conflict we are having with the Islamic jihadists. Then again, he might metaphorically knock down a beehive, stirring up the nest, to remove it from the building.

One other quick point on Rudy; one of his recent commercials personifies my greatest fear. Rudy has stated, "…I want people to look at those and say if I agree with most of them, then this is a person who can bring them about. And if they disagree with it, they should vote against me, because I am going to bring it about." So what Rudy is saying to me is that he wants to do it all his way. So Rudy, are you willing to make concessions to pass legislation? When you are president, how thick will you make the log jam of legislation? Again, I think we need a leader who knows how to make concessions, and works well with others. I do not believe headstrong bullheaded policies are good for the nation, but I do believe that mindset will cause polarization and hyper-partisanship. Rudy might win the nomination, but I still don't think he is the right person for the job.

As you all know, I am having a hard time leaving Mitt Romney out of the mix here. I can't help but think what Mitt could do as President. As I stated in my last post, Mitt can do it all, but I also feel that he can handle the Iraq situation with greater finesse than any other person on either stage. Mitt has the right idea when it comes to immigration, taxes, extremists, and health care. Mitt is the best candidate on either side of the aisle, and would be a great president. Rudy might be a good president, but Mitt would be great. I have heard every candidate, and met many of them. There is no question in my mind that the next leader of the free world should be Mitt Romney. I may not agree with everything Mitt has to say, but I do agree with him on every issue that I find important.

Considering my feelings about the next election, and who will be the nominees, there is one slim silver lining; we will have a Republican in office next. Unless Mitt Romney can overcome Rudy Giuliani in the primary (I am crossing my fingers and praying real hard for Mitt), ladies and gentlemen, your next President of the United States of America is Rudy Giuliani.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

I am curious as to how you can support a man who sold sensitive information to China and used his extra-marital affair to distract the media from the TRUE issues. Much better to be known by voters as a man who couldn't help himself to sex with a young intern than a treasonous villain!

Hillary does not have a shot. She was here last week and has YET to provide a single answer to the questions posed to her. She smiles and feigns deafness. Where is the money coming from for the socialist health care plan she is pushing? As for her platform in Northern New Hampshire, she was really pushing environmentally friendly fuels yet she has voted on each occasion against the very principles she pretends she is for. Flip flopper? Yes, you have that right but aside from that she has "no game" as it were. Unfortunately, Americans are not ready for a minority or a female president. Too bad, I thought Alan Keyes would have done well.

Myke said...

Though I do believe "the voice of reason" has some valid points, there are some areas were you MISSED the point. Let's start with your opening statement. I never said I supported Bill Clinton. I think you may want to read the first line of my blog post:

http://temperaturegauge.blogspot.com/2007/11/next-president-of-united-states-of_05.html

Let me quote the part you missed; "though I have never and would never vote for him."

My second point: the reason Hillary will do well in the primary is BECAUSE she will not (to quote you) "provide a single answer to the questions posed to her." This is the “Clinton style” that has worked so well in the past and diehard Democrats love Bill for it. Hide the truth, and don't take a formal stance. More Democrats are elected on charisma alone than those elected on the issues. The reason charisma is the Democrat "Excalibur" is because they typically can not win on the issues. Do you really think Democrats would be elected if they told you the cost of all the "free" things they want to give you? Honestly, let's look at “Hillary care” on cost alone. She says, I am going to give you free healthcare, and all I have to do is raise you taxes 20-30%. Now who is going to vote for that? Every American thinks they pay too much in taxes already. She is not going to win the on the issues, Democrats rarely do.

Not only does Hillary have "game," but she has the best game if she can keep the spot light off the issues and confuse voters into believing she is on their side. Remember, no matter what your view on the issue is, you agree with her because she never told you what side she is on. Her platform is based on “slight of hand” politics. The idea is to make sure a voter never thinks “I don’t agree with Hillary on this issue.” It is not whether you agree with her or not, but rather that you do not disagree with her. It will work, so long as voters do not make this connection; “I don’t disagree with Hillary on anything. At the same time, I don’t agree with her either because I don’t know where she stands.” Worked for Bill and now it will work for Hillary.

Are American ready for a female or minority President? Don't know, but I know the Democrats are.

Oh, by the way, kudos on the Alen Keyes comment.