They’re crawling out of the RINO woodwork now, folks. (via Shoremark)
The Corner on National Review Online
The Field So Far [Rick Brookhiser]Now that Fred Thompson is officially in the race, it is appropriate to say that he is, on the face of it, by far the weakest potential president of the top tier Republicans.
Strongest is Giuliani who, alone of all the candidates in both parties, has done something. Two things—saved New York City; and led America for two days six years ago.
As a matter of fact, New York city was “saved” (if, indeed, it was even threatened with destruction) by the heroism of its emergency workers and ordinary citizens. The best you can say for Giuliani (and it is, indeed, a very good thing to say) is that, unlike Ray Nagin in New Orleans, he didn’t actively contribute to making the disaster worse. The bullshit about leading America is just that - bullshit.
Mitt Romney has been governor of an important, largeish state; has run a business; and saved the Olympics at a dicey moment.
Yes, America needs a Massachusetts (Taxachusetts) politician who’s flipped, flopped, and flapped even more than that other Mass Pol, John Kerry, to arrive at the positions he espouses today (though not yesterday, and probably not tomorrow).
John McCain has spent his political career in the Senate, typically a graveyard of energy. And yet, as everyone acknowledges, he is a leader (even when he is leading in the wrong direction).
Great. Brookheiser’s logic is impeccable. Even if it leads us in the wrong direction, great leadership is the only requirement. By those standards, Brookheiser would be cheering for Mao, Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini. Benito would make the subways run on time, and if they didn’t, Mao would denude Brooklyn. Feh.
Fred Thompson came to the offices of National Review some years when he was still in the Senate. I liked him fine. He has done nothing, anywhere, ever. The Hubble Telescope could not find what he has done, because he has not done it.
First, this is a flat lie. Read about Thompson’s career here, or here, and see if you think it adds up to “nothing.” Second, why does Brookhiser feel the need to resort to baldfaced lies like these?
It would be unwise to put such a man in the White House at this moment in history.
It would be unwise to pay too much attention to a Giuliani flack like Rick Brookhiser.
Submit to Stumbled Upon!
First Fred is lazy. Now he is weak and not a leader. Next I predict the ‘talking-heads’ will claim that he is ’stupid.’ Just like they did with Ford, Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II.
I just can’t see how we will ever be able elect a stupid candidate, particularly if he is lazy and not a leader.
If they keep lowering people’s expectations for Fred–watching the debates is going to be a joy.
Bill, I don’t disagree with your sentiments. However, it is just possible that when he was talking about Rudy’s accomplishments, there were 2 distinct ones: Saving crime-ridden NYC before 9/11, and presenting a leadership face after 9/11.
Like him for it or not, in the aftermath of the attack, he and the media combined to use his image to fill the charisma gap of our current administration.
Having said all that, the other quotes certainly look like a pure hackjob. I have great hopes for Fred; I hope as he gets rolling I can hear some policy initiatives I can believe in.
The RINO express rolls on at NRO. There are some died in the wool, true red conservatives there, but far too many belong to the Hugh Hewitt “I heart the GOP!” portion of the Republican party. They aren’t conservatives or libertarians first, they are Republicans first. And I simply cannot stand that. It’s like watching a mirror image of the Daily Kos.
They aren’t RINOs, just that sometimes some of them are more Republican than conservative.
A long-time irritation w/r/t National Review is its assumption that New York is the center of the universe and that the rest of the U.S. takes its guidance from there. In the magazine, Brookhiser bylines the ‘City Desk’ page, their note to the world about their city. Any surprise that he prefers Giuliani?
” Any surprise that he prefers Giuliani?”
No, and as someone who lived in NYC before, during, and after Giuliani (one and off, not the whole time), in my opinion he was a remarkable mayor. He not only cleaned up the crime and dirt, he cleaned up the systemic corruption both from the political machine and the mob. The Koch administration was corrupt beyond belief and Dinkins was the biggest incompetent NYC has ever seen (and that says a lot). John Gotti died in jail and the mob is a mere shell of what it was before. Some say he was a bit overzealous prosecuting white collar criminals. The one thing you can be sure of with him, he won’t bend to the Washington elite like every other Republican President except Reagan. He didn’t listen to the chattering class in NY, who were horrified when he threw Arafat out of a function (and I believe there was a Castro incident as well). Also, NYC has a greater population than many states, Arkansas for instance, so he has executive experience. He has problems and is far from perfect, but don’t diminish what he did.
He also made NYC a sanctuary city, and he thinks the Second Amendment gives the state the power to ban firearms entirely in private hands “out of necessity.”
I see him potentially turning out like another guy from New York, Ann - Franklin Delano Roosevelt. A great war leader, and a highly effective leader who, in my opinion, did as much damage to the US, long term, as he did in the short term to our enemies. Yes, we need leadership, but after that, it depends on what the leadership tries to accomplish.
We already have an American President who is far too willing to make war on American liberties than on American enemies. Giuliani, based on his history in NYC, would be even worse. Yes, the buses would run on time, and the nationwide embedded microchip ID program would work like a charm, but….
I’m wrong about Giuliani’s stance on the Second. He supports “reasonable restrictions,” but not outright bans.
Of course, one man’s “reasonable restriction…”
The problem is that one person’s reasonable restriction becomes the precedent for and foundation of some other person’s outright ban. We know that not every gun-control supporter is an outright banner…
…but we know that some are, and for that reason no compromise is possible with any of them, even if we were inclined to compromise. (Personally, I’m not–I’m at the point where I think I ought to be able to have a pack howitzer in the garage if I can afford one.)