Wednesday, October 10, 2007
|
|
The War Powers Hour: Mitt Romney and Ted Olson
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
4:54 PM
|
The first hour of today's program will consist of interviews with Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani-surrogate Ted Olsen, as well as Dean John Eastman and Professor Erwin Chemerinksy on whether or not presidents need to consult with Congress prior to the use of force. Transcripts will be up here later.
Bottom line: Presidents always consult with their lawyers before deciding whether to use force and whether to consult with Congress. I am quite certain Ted Olsen did so as part of the Reagan Administration legal team, and Mayor Giuliani as Associate Attorney General may have been part of that review as well, though the AAG typically is more concerned with law enforcement than the War Powers Act.
Paul Mirengoff of Powerline has the best analysis of this hyper-analysis of the Rudy and Mitt responses to the hypothetical Chris Matthews posed yesterday. His conclusion:
Romney gave his answer about consulting lawyers in the context of questions about a president's legal obligation (if any) to obtain congressional authorization. In this context it was natural, though probably not very savvy, for Romney to talk about lawyers. Debaters points aside, I would expect a president contemplating military action against a foreign country to seek the opinion of administration lawyers on legal questions regarding the proper role of Congress under the Constitution in the matter.
Third, Romney made it clear that, bottom line, he "would make sure that we would take the action necessary to keep Iran from having a nuclear weapon." So Romney's answer cannot be construed as imposing either a "lawyers' test," much less a "global test" with respect to this issue.
The real question for all the candidates: Would you pull the trigger if you had thought there was an imminent threat to the U.S? The GOP's big three all said yes in various ways, but they all said yes.
The record of the last President Clinton on this particular issue speaks louder than words: He refused to do so, time and time again. There is no reason to believe Senator Clinton would act more forcefully than her husband did, and her sponsorship of War Power Act 2.0 vis-a-vis Iran is proof of that predisposition to kick cans down roads in the hope of keeping poll ratings high.
|
|
All hands on deck for Romney damage control, eh Hugh?
Why don't you just do your show from his bus...it'll cut out the need for faxes and emails.
Sheesh... |
|
Hugh, forgive me but this just looks like you're part of the Romney communications team instead of keeping even a fig-leaf of center-right independence.
The point isn't whether consulting with a lawyer is necessary. Romney's answer showed that he couldn't distinguish between a strategic decision and a tactical step in the decision process.
It also showed he was oblivious to a significant constitutional question since War Powers was passed. Republicans have long been adament that War Powers infringes on the President's Constitutional authority. The other candidates, including the one who was mayor, know this. Romney didn't.
Does Romney's "Lawyer Up" answer disqualify him? No, but it does highlight his neophyte status when it comes to basic Constitutional questions that lay just below the obvious ones.
But trying to make excuses or justify it simply highlights it more. It makes one wonder what other misunderstandings Romney might have. That is why I paraphrase Hamlet.
|
|
Hugh is the best water bailer in the business. Mitt comes running like a little kid who scraped his knee to momma Hugh to make it better and explain it away to the lumpen.
This man is NOT presidential material.
This is so funny. At least no use listening to the show today, since its going to be, as usual, a Mitt ad. |
|
About a week or so I raised what I considered one of the important questions of our times on one of these threads- what should we do about Iran? As an independent, I was distraught that liberals seemed to have no good answer to this question, so I was hoping conservatives might provide thoughtful approaches.
What I got in response were in some ways even more ludicrous than the liberals' "Do nothing and let them build their bomb" answer. One guy predicted that France would deal with Iran for us; he later retracted when that came out sounding as foolish as it actually was. Another gent spoke about "secret weapons" that Bush and our army had that would deal with the problem; he reminded me of Germans talking about the same thing right before 1945. Yet a third guy wanted to discuss how all of this was Al Gore's fault; he backed it up with an article by Newsmax.com.
To the point: there was, I thought, one good piece of advice: we should ask our Presidential candidates on both sides this question, and keep asking until they give credible answers. Well, I thought this made only good sense.
OK, so as of yesterday we at least have Mitt Romney's answer; he will consult his attorneys. Gee, it's nice to know that that he is such a decisive guy, isn't it? I think I prefer leaving it up to France, what do you guys think? |
|
Clinton's lawyering up was one reason he never go OBL. Too cautions, Mitt would be the same.
What in Mitt's background indicates he would act forcefully against militant Islam? Nothing. |
|
|
If Romney wants to be deliberate & careful before launching another half-baked military action in the Middle East, he goes UP in my estimation. I am glad that the neocons are all lining up behind Giuliani, since Giuliani will never win the general - even if he could miraculously win the GOP nomination. Too many pro-life voters would stay home rather than vote for Giuliani - his promise to nominate Scalias notwithstanding. If Giuliani wants to follow the neocon strategy of achieving peace & security through premptive war, Romney's hesitancy looks sane by comparison. |
|
|
MikeS. Well, Mitt spent the Viet Nam war in France as a preacher with a draft deferment. Maybe I should have consulted a lawyer back then instead of enlisting, but that's just me. |
|
Kerry - Take the Global Test
Romney - Take the Lawyer Test
|
|
|
just come out and say you are a shill for Mitt. You always hammer the MSM for doing EXACTLY what you are doing. |
|
Wait, let me get this straight...
A fine objective Conservative cites another reasoned thinker (the impressive Mr. Mirengoff), with sound basis, and a number of responses on this thread 'blow it off'?
Conservatives use basis, and some here are just too biased for their own good.
Some remind me of the misguided who thought helping the Conservative agenda would be to empower Pelosi and Reid in Congress last 2006.
Romney is a sharp, impressive, admirable Conservative Republican.
An excellent Man, who is truly Presidential Material.
His fine CEO experience and pleasant optimism is very healthy.
His response was indeed fine, and the hyperbole of emotive cynics reveals the same old tired crow.
richard_223 is wrong...
|
|
http://www.lostinspacerobot.com/
Why did I suddenly think of this when Hugh posted this about Mitt Romney? Hugh is "the Robbie the Robot" to Mitt Romney. Whenever young Mitt gets into trouble with the base, Hugh is there to give him a danger warning.
And yes, the Boston Globe is Dr. Smith. |
|
Romney made a gaffe, and acting like he KNOWS what Romney is thinking Hugh starts telling ALL of us what he was thinking, but he doesn't know.
I wonder if Hugh can get cited for being a on air political ad for Romney and not giving equal time to other candidates, because that's exactly what he's doing. |
|
right now. You go there and all the articles (generally) coming out are saying that thompson did fine, giuliani did better and that Mitt laid an egg, though he looks good and is energetic.
He's VP material I'll give him that much. |
|
|
As I've been looking into the history of the initiation of military action by a President without Congressional authorization, I've become troubled. It seems to me there's a real conflict between the Constitutional authority given solely to Congress to declare war and the claim by all Presidents since Truman in Korea that they have the ability to initiate independent military action in some circumstances. This claim does not seem to be supported by any intent of the Founders - they seem to have considered and rejected this from what I read, because of distrust arising from English history. How does this jibe with a strict conservative, originalist interpretation of the Constitution? I'd be interested to hear how others perceive this apparent conflict that troubles me. |
|
|
Where do the other GOP debaters go to explain their gaffes? Is Mitt the only one who runs quicker than you can say flip flop to a talk radio show, of all things. |
|
|
What is the problem with following up on something you said? Every one of the candidates have gaffed, and they can choose how they want to deal with it. So what? Why the hysterical "Danger Mitt, Danger!"? I fail to see the ulterior motive you want to read into this. |
|
Medved claims Rudy did the best. Fred did ok.
But Medved was very critical of Mitt. Why is that?
And HNAV, eeeeeeuuuuuuwwwww, your glowing endorsements of Mitt Romney are crossing the frontier of mancrush to full on obsession. I can't tell anymore who is more physically smitten with Mitt, you or Portland mom (I think its you). But you can do Dean a favor by predicting a premature Indian win and jinxing them (like you did when they were playing the Yankees). |
|
|
the problem is that the candidate is NOT following up. Hugh is following up for him before he's even said anything. It's irritating because Hugh is so obviously for Mitt and won't admit it. if he admitted it. LIKE DEAN, then you could handle him better, but he's just a shill acting like he's fair. It's hypocritical |
|
Alex,
When do the other debaters get to come on Hugh's show and expect a friendly interview. Equal Time.
Plus I never heard of a 'debate' where you have to explain what you said the next day. They say what's on their mind under the debate pressure, that's what I want to know. If they can't handle the pressure without making major gaffes, we need to know that now. |
|
|
Fair enough, but why are you surprised that Hugh favors Romney? He wrote a book about him, you know? I agree that he should probably go ahead at some point and be as explicit as Dean has been, but the accusation of being "hypocritical" seems to water down the term. |
|
Alex, the danger is Mitt has to keep running to a radio talk show host, a presidential candidate should not have to be dependent on a shock jock.
Last week Mitt had to go on Hugh's show over the Rush soldier flap and Mitt throwing Rush under the bus on that one.
If Mitt can't trust his own judgment, why should I? |
|
Why do so many here have such a problem with people coming to the logical conclusion that Romney is the best candidate? It's clearly between Romney and Guiliani at this point, and everyone with a brain realizes that. Romney seems to fit what social conservatives want (me included) and has the necessary qualifications and leadership skills. Even Guiliani would make a pretty good president compared to any one else running on the right or the left.
So get over it, and stop reducing everything down to "manlove" being "physically smitten". Try to make an actual point about why Romney is so bad. Problem is, you can't find much to complain about with Romney besides the dog ride and his religion. Very telling!
|
|
|
They all go running to talk show hosts every day! Romney was nearly perfect last night. He gave the right answer, but it was somewhat clumsy. So stinkin what. Did you hear the whole answer? He will not allow Iran to get nukes, and he's been very forceful and consistent on this from day 1. Period. That's all you need to know. |
|
"When do the other debaters get to come on Hugh's show and expect a friendly interview. Equal Time. "
They have come on the show. I haven't found Hugh to be particularly antagonistic to them. It is clear that he knows Romney better. After all, he wrote a book about him.
"Plus I never heard of a 'debate' where you have to explain what you said the next day. "
Hugh didn't organize the debate, that was CNBC. Nothing wrong with any candidate following up to clarify unintended messages from a part of his debate.
"If they can't handle the pressure without making major gaffes, we need to know that now."
Fair enough. Is this a major gaffe though? You know, I am a bit confused sometimes. When he doesn't make gaffes, he is called "too polished" and "too scripted", and when he does gaffe, it is "too much." Which is it? |
|
Mitt has been on the last two weeks.Thompson has never been on to my knowledge. Hugh was rude to Tancredo, never let him talk; Mitt gets all the air time he needs.
Hugh's show is Mitt's 'war room' where they get the spin out as soon as possible to limit damage.
Yes, if a candidate's first instinct is to lawyer up when deciding on war or not, he does not have the temperment to be President. Overlawyered made Clinton too cautious and created overbearing rules of engagement for our troops in Iraq
Grant you the last point, good one. That will be a needle for Mitt to thread, so to speak. |
|
|
|
You always roll in when I roll out, but have a good time anyway.
No prisoners....! Maybe I'll check back later... |
|
|
..about,Duuuuude.Have a good trip.I'll slay evil while you're out,my friend. No prisoners. |
|
Romney came across as cautious but serious about going to War. That is not a bad approach with most voters. The fact that Romney would consult constitutional advisers (besides Ron Paul) about the War Powers act is encouraging.
We do not want Congress to hand cuff the President nor do we want a President (as commander in chief) who is trigger happy. We also do not want nor need a peace activist as President.
We want a President who can act decisively and quickly when he has to but also one who will ask council and study serious decisions when there is time to deliberate.
That is the Romney decision making style. |
|
Romney is both an MBA and a lawyer. Rudy and Fred are lawyers. Bush is an MBA. We basically have to choose between lawyers and MBAs. In Romney you get both. Romney is not timid. He can be deliberative but he can also be very decisive. He would not have made a fortune if he were not decisive.
There is a time to act quickly on the information that you have and there is a time to gather more information.
Romney seems to know when to do both. His answer is not a gaff and plays well with War weary voters. |
|
To me it sounded like more of the same:
"I would have taken bin Laden but I didn't have anything with which to charge him." (Bill Clinton explaining why he didn't capture bin Laden)
A real Leader don't ask his lawyer, a real Leader order his lawyer to find a way to make it legal.
Romney sounds more and more like the presidential creation of Dr. Frankenstein. |
|
I appreciate your patriotism and your OPINIONS. When you are not taking time out of your day to crap on Romney, who are you liking in the Presidential race?
"and acting like he KNOWS what Romney is thinking Hugh starts telling ALL of us what he was thinking, but he doesn't know."
But you two do.
|
|
How does any station carry Hugh's radio show without running a "the following is a paid endorsement of Mitt Romney" message before, during and after the show. If I didn't find this hilarious it would be sickening.
I guess I started listening to Hugh about 2 years ago. In that 2 years Hugh has predicted insanely wrong outcomes and has backed insanely wrong moves and yet there he is again, ready to do it all over. And every ounce of respect and credibility has been thrown out the window by Mr. Hewitt. But if you really pay attention I think he knows it himself. He does everything in his power not to be on the air and notice how he tries to bury his pro Mitt blog postings with other stuff. You are slipping Hugh !!!
And Joe I still think Portland Mom is Hugh himself.
DirLie |
|
Big G: Actually I kind of like Mitt, he is a good man, its Hugh's relentless shilling for him that drives me crazy. So I am just providing some counterpoint here.
I have not decided on a candidate yet. Which ever one has the best chance of beating Hillary would be my choice, so for now I am still shopping; each has his strengths and weaknesses. |
|
I said HNAV had a mancrush on Mitt. Not manlove. HNAV's gushings border on that, but right now it is probably platonic.
You ask, how could anyone not like Mitt (come on you think he is hot). Here's his weakness: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Elx3UWmyAY4 Maybe you consider the Log Cabin Republican attack on Mitt unfair, but all those clips are real. Mitt said them. There are a lot more similar clips of Mitt saying these things too.
Hillary will use these various clips against Mitt all the way in the general. Now I know Rudy and Fred have their respective weaknesses too. But Rudy and Fred have at least not gone 180 degrees on their positions. Mitt has. That is why I wish Mitt did not listen to Hugh and try to be something he is not. Mitt is a social moderate fiscal conservative. Hugh and Mitt's handlers have changed Mitt into something he is not. Ironically to appeal to the Dobsons, who won't reciprocate the love, Mitt lost independents and moderate Dems and Republicans who would have been very receptive to him. |
|
Is that you Hugh? That is what DirLie thinks.
If that is you Hugh, why is it when I post a link now it does not work, yet when other people post links they do work?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Elx3UWmyAY4
Like this clip. |
|
have been too bad a "gaffe." He ticked up a notch to 16% in the Rasmussen Poll, today.
Thompson slipped down to 17%. |
|
|
just because of that. We have the MSM for counterpoint, no one wants you to fall in love with Mitt (except Hugh right?), but c'mon the lawyer stuff you know is overblown, mainly because Mitt is correct. The main crux is that even though you actually do consult lawyers, Mitt gets crap because it's not what you "should" say in a debate? Therefore he's not presidential material? Did anyone actually read his reply in its entirety? This is really much ado about nothing, and Mitt really had a great debate and was one of the few that actually addressed Michigan's problems. |
|
|
|
it was the result of last night's debate. It's a 4 day moving average. But, it's unlikely that Mitt's number would "move up" if he'd gotten a Bad Number last night after the debate.
On the other hand, it's unlikely that Fred's would have dropped if he'd had a Good number after the debate. |
|
Joe,
Aren't you the fellow who has brought up Andrew Sullivan's name about 1,462 different times on the Townhall comment boards---often in completely unrelated context to the particular topic of a thread---yet you're actually mocking HNAV for what you characterize as a 'man-crush' on Mitt Romney ?
Are you kidding, or just not very self-aware ?
|
|
LOL !
Romney is top notch, so is Rudy...
Remember bright one, you were a big fan of McCain.
LOLOLOL...
Perhaps because a closet Democrat wants someone who is most like him.
Maybe this is why you are afraid of Romney, who is outstanding.
Instead of knocking Romney with basis, you few are just attacking Mr. Hewitt for having brains?
hhehehheee...
NO wonder some fools thought it was best to not vote in 2006.
Totally misguided, or secretly pulling for the likes of Nancy and Harry. |
|
...they vote with their emotions, if they have any about politics. We all know this, though nobody likes to say it...
The truth is, the swing voters who will decide this and every election have up to this point never heard of Mitt Romney. They have heard of Rudy, they of course have heard of Hillary, and some have heard of Thompson.
If the Republicans are going to win this election, they have to overcome the following:
1. Fatigue with Bush
2. Fatigue with the Iraq war.
3. A perception, unfortunately growing among the American people, that liberals have the answers to issues such as global warming and healthcare.
4. A growing belief among Latinos in swing states that Republicans are ant-Latino.
5. Hillary Clinton's name recognition.
Some of you may love Mitt Romney, but he simply doesn't have the name recognition needed to successfully overcome all of these factors. Actually, I don't think the other guys do, either, but at least their chances should be higher.
I would put their odds of beating Hillary as follows:
Rudy 35%
Fred 25%
Mitt 10%
Disagree? |
|
JOE has no class...
PROJECTING now?
"I said HNAV had a mancrush on Mitt. Not manlove. HNAV's gushings border on that, but right now it is probably platonic."
You might be the most foolish closet Democrat on these boards...
El fake-O on the board O?
Is it Obama or Hillary?
I think this comment that JOE 'left', is indeed beyond the taste and pale of decency for the fine HH.
Reminds me of the Liberal Democrats slander...
Don't worry, it makes me laugh, but others should be downright disgusted.
You cannot debate the issues, seem to not even understand basic Conservative principles, and worked so hard to undermine the Republicans in 2006.
How many times did you mention Meirs that month in October before the big vote?
Maybe your just very young and very misguided.
You do have a lot of growing up to do, and implying about others 'sexuality' on a message board, is about as low as it gets.
Perhaps Romney is something you really fear...
A capable Conservative with energy, charisma, guts, success, savvy, experience...
Now you have made someone undetermined, MORE of a Romney supporter.
If you were trying to weaken support for the Man, you just did the opposite.
I will still keep the door open for Rudy or Fred, but Romney can thank you. |
|
because he has been right on certain topics (opposing torture, demanding fiscal responsibility, etc.) and Hugh and Dean have repeatedly lowered that debate it to the fact he is gay. I do not agree with Sullivan about everything: I never would never vote for Kerry and I think we have to finish what we started in Iraq.
If HNAV were gay (he may be, I do not know the guy--I assume he is a guy) it would not bother me at all. But gay or straight, read HNAV's posts about Mitt. The writing is something an 11 year old girl would pen about her latest crush. So that is what I was teasing him about. As HNAV would say: "LOL"
I actually like HNAV (how can you not like a guy who has a blog called "Hillary Needs A Vacation")--but it is funny how he always agrees with everything Hugh says. I on the other hand disagree with Hugh about 80% of the time.
I hope that clears things up for you one hot minute. |
|
Great insight, but I disagree...
Everyone in this Nation will know MITT Romney just as much as anyone by the time the General Election comes around if he wins the Nomination.
In fact, it actually helps he is somewhat unknown in the populist arena, for few will grow weary of him, which is the problem with Hillary.
Voters on the fence, (and few of them exist with Hillary - 51% say no way already), will have trouble returning anyone back to the White House, especially Bill and Hillary after all those scandals and interns.
There is no doubt, Mitt is sound enough to counter Hillary on stage, and will do fine in a General Election.
For one thing, he is NOT a Washington insider, and polls suggest voters are tired of the status quo, which is exactly what HILLARY Clinton represents.
Romney is a fresh face, and they can do incredibly well.
(For example, the unethical Bill Clinton was unknown sadly Nationally - and got into the race very late).
Fred is a former Senator, and Rudy is well known.
Romney the new-outsider can be big plus. |
|
Okay, I probably deserve a good whooping for mouthing off, but calling me a Democrat! I just said you had a mancrush on Mitt. But saying I am a Democrat! You are really getting mean now!
I will say it again, just so it is clear, yes I like John McCain a lot. My number one deal break issue is the war on terror, and John McCain would be best at fighting it. He is also the best GOP candidate to win the general election. Unfortuantely he has little chance on the GOP nomination. For John McCain to get the GOP nomination, Mitt would have to load Rudy, Fred, Huckabee, and Duncan Hunter in his old white station wagen, and strap Newt to the dog carrier on the roof, and drive off a cliff. Even then the party might go with Bob Dole.
So I rank the GOP candidates like this: John McCain (even though he has no chance), Rudy, Fred, Mitt, Huckabee, Duncan Hunter. |
|
But, he ain't stupid. He's the only one, last night, that spoke directly to the voters of Michigan. His Jennifer Grantholm joke was probably good for four, or five percent, there.
I'll stick with, "It's ALL New Hampshire." I'd put the winner, there, at 90% to win the nomination. Don't overlook Mi, and Nv slipping in in front of SC.
Also, somebody, earlier, had it right. As "News Junkies" you all would be astonished at how many "Voters" don't have a clue who Romney, Hunter, Tancredo, Huckabee, or Brownback are. |
|
the problem with the Bill Clinton analogy is when he ran against GHWB, he was energetic as opposed to Bush who appeared old and tired. In 96 against Dole, same thing, even more so.
Hillary soesn't have this problem, neither does Mitt or Rudy (Fred would,though.) But because Hillary is still youthful, the "fresh face" advantage is negated.
Name recognition is muich more important than you think. Because Hillary has it, she is able to spend her time getting rid of her negatives, rather than trying to become well known. You watch, that 51% figure you're quoting is already gowing down, and it will continue to do so. The sad truth is, most independents remember the Clinton Administration with fondness and even a sense of longing for the good old days. You and I might hate this, but it is true. The same sense of longing for an easier past which got Reagan elected in 1980 will probably also work for Hillary Clinton. (This comparison makes be ill, by the way, but I'm forced to make it.)
Most importantly, though voters always tell you they would like a new face that isn't a part of the beltway, in the end, they always vote for who they know the best. I just don't believe Romney can overcome this advantage. I think Rudy really has the only shot. |
|
Are you suggesting the GOP lost the House and Senate because I mentioned Harriet Miers too much last October? If I mentioned her, it was in context of Hugh's past picks. It would be nice to have that kind of influence, but it was not me who lost those elections. It involved a string of GOP scandals in some key states, a congressman chasing young pages around DC, and a certain Senator who stepped in some maccaca.
|
|
We get to "Know" people pretty fast in the TV/Internet Age. I mean, how many people knew beans about GWB, or Kerry 3 months before they won their respective Iowa caucuses? |
|
Joe,
When HNAV agrees with Hugh or Romney, you say it's because he has a "man-crush."
But when YOU agree with Andrew Sullivan, you insist it's 'not' a man-crush, rather it's because....you and Andrew just happen to occupy a higher plane of existence and knowledge !
Joe, I don't think you realize how often you've commented about Sullivan.
Dean Barnett has written non-political posts about the Boston Red Sox and Tiger Woods, and rather than comment on the topic of baseball or golf, you have often written a non-sequitir comment like, "Hey sorry to be off-topic here, but here's a link to what Andrew Sullivan wrote this morning about...health care benefits for the United Auto Workers !"
Dean or Hugh could write a post explicitly about the national flower of Bulgaria, yet you'll still respond by expounding on the virtues of Andrew Sullivan's latest tome on his trip to the dry cleaners to pick up his husband's shirts, as if his words were carefully carved into a tablet and given to Moses.
And by the way, Joe, Hugh and Dean have always countered Sullivan's preposterous arguments with facts, logic, reason, and humor.
They have not "...repeatedly lowered that debate to the fact he is gay" as you claim.
That's just a lie.
|
|
Rudy or Mitt,I believe.She hasn't come up against anyone tough,smart and resilient--AND,poles away from her politics and core beliefs(ie:Socialism).
None of the student council girly boys in her party primaries have true grit.None of the stuff to put an egg beater in her gut.She has totally controlled the situation.The MSM are having a swoon-a-thon with her and lockstepping to her rules of NO hardball.Also,the MSMs being the MSMs they are,given the right excuse,they can turn her comfort zone into a roiling Hell--Time will tell there.Most folks have a lower opinion of the media
chorus than they do of congress,anyway.And that's nearly mathematically impossible.
Her M.O. is to turn Victim when things get really tough.Our guy's gotta be ready for that card.It must be disarmed pronto.There have been stong hints from Clintonland that plans are afoot to use Rudy's bumpy personal life against him.I trust that Rudy's people are stifling grins and
readying an a--whooping response.Think Avalanche,if necessary.With Mitt,in this department,he's untouchable.
Besides her truly bizarre & shameless offers of "bribes" to the electorate:Socialized medicine,$5,000 per baby born,401K's subsidized, etc...with no defendable way of paying for them that wouldn't a.)SINK taxpayers...b.)SINK a robust and vibrant economy...c.)INSANE to be advocating this socialist,bureaucratic nightmare,vastly costly fru-fru in Time of WAR...
Con't.. |
|
Con't..
PLAY HER NEGATIVES adroitly and regularly.She's ON
the Record with tons of crap that's exploitable. So,dammit,our guy needs to not-be-shy about reminding the country about her consistent "triangulating",aka,waffling,flim-flamming lies.They are on the RECORD in glorious video.I'm not talking "Honest" changes of mind and/or position.I'm thinking of the many scrambles for cover-excuses-blather she's used(in this campaign alone)for dissembling and CYA.Much of the pandering to the left-nutters in the primaries can be exploited regularly.Put her consistently on the defensive.Either of her likely
general election opponents--Rudy & Mitt--have very,very impressive career records.She DOESN'T.
Rudy & Mitt have vast executive experience.She DOESN'T.
I assume,since they are all basically socialists in their race,that her Dem opponents haven't throttled her with her massive nonsense on socializing American medicine.The evidence is overwhelming that the system is a shipwreck in every industrialized democracy where it exists.
PRESS this with easy details.Example:Why do sick folks from Canada run to America to get medical help??? Press her for a model she admires. That will either a.)put her in an indefensible corner...or..b.)force her to use,say,Sweden,which isn't bigger than one of our small states. Etc,etc,etc...
Lady MacClinton's Negatives are Huge and Exploitable.Do so.Remember:CLINTON FATIGUE?
Because she's married to the jolly attention sucking narcissist that she is..It's a given
that there will be some Clintonian soap opera played out in the campaign.Encourage this.Use it.
(Trust me--They would!)Unless they put Bubba under lock & key in Yemen,he's going to make sure
HE gets lots of attention.The mo'he gets,the mo' he needs mo'...USE THIS. |
|
I admire Andrew Sullivan and I think he is a serious blogger, regardless of what Dean says. If I were gay, however, I would not be hot for a bald middle aged political pundit with a hairy back. My apologies to Sullivan for that, but it is true.
Your Moses comment, however, was funny.
But to get serious, Dean and Hugh ignored arguemnts about the U.S. adopting torture as a policy of dealing with our enemies. Sullivan can be occasionally shrill and excitable about some topics, but he is right on that one. Sullivan would raise legitimate arguments and facts and Dean and Hugh would make jokes. So I completely disagree with you on that on.
Sullivan also raised the alarm about the Iraq war not going well early on. Guys like Hugh pretended nothing was wrong. Now that General Petraeus is in place, Hugh is his biggest cheerleader. But I cannot recall Hugh ever begging the administration to change course. Can you? |
|
Oh,hell...Where our Girl is concerned,MikeS,I could go on & on.It seems to me that in your(very well stated)comments above,you're leaving out her massive negatives and her vulnerability to them.
Hillary Clinton,long ago,sold her soul--her SELF,if you will--to Bubba's sleazy coat tails.
Sad,if she weren't using our country for her canvas.But,since she is,she's appalling and quite vulnerable because of it.She's very different from
the Slickster,but similar in some scary and weak ways.For a poster child-therapuetic bookshelf dependent/co-dependent decades long partnership to maintain itself,there's alot--needless to say--
of sickness.USE THIS.Co-signing the behavior of a 30+year serial filanderer of the compulsive variety,has made her brittle,shrill,super-serious,unable to use subtlety & nimbleness.Unlike
Bill,she gives off indications that she actually believes the swill she dishes.USE THIS.
Rudy,I believe,could be her worst nightmare because of his innate aggresiveness and combativeness and HUMOR.Me'thinks that the same Guy who cleaned up New York City can best her
consistently.He has a good(sometimes cruel)sense of humor.She has None.USE THIS.
Mitt can stand there and be his hugely intelligent,classy self and hurt her.But,he's also got to develop some cunning and 'take no prisoners' ruthlessness or she might out-arm-rassle him.
Their APPETITES played out again on our nation's stage ISN'T ACCEPTABLE.It would be ruinous for America IN THESE HUGE TIMES OF WAR & DANGER.
(*Excuse,please,the windage & length...Things I normally hit the leftoids here for doing!*) |
|
|
I agree Hillary is beatable. But it is not going to be easy. She is a tough opponent. But she should be defeated because she would be bad for this country. |
|
Joe,
You wrote that Hugh and Dean "...repeatedly lowered that debate to the fact he is gay."
That is a lie.
You disagree with Hugh and Dean on issues, so you've decided to just slander them with a lie.
By the way, you're the poor fellow who plays the 'gay' schtick on people---not Hugh or Dean.
You did it to HNAV above in this thread, and you even were obsessing over 'gay puppies' on a few different occasions when Dean has posted the pic of the beagle puppy.
|
|
You can go back much further than Truman to find presidential decisions to take military action without a declaration of war. Thomas Jefferson, who knew something about the intent of the Constitution, sent the Marines to fight the Barbary Coast pirates.
Presidents must always have the ability to respond to agressive action without waiting for a committee in Congress to figure out there is an emergency. On the other hand, I would hope that the president would not be a trigger happy loon anxious to start a war that is so ill-advised that his lawyers would object too it. Romney took the right approach to this question. |
|
I strongly agree with most of your theses on her.
The two of them are pathological.They feed upon each other.Can't live with and can't live without.
Lucky country.We get to be sucked into their sick melodrama.How can the people who've had their Soap
foisted on them have such a short memory for pain and exhaustion?Hopefully,as you contend,with the reminders coming back in our faces,we will reject another long dose of "fatigue".
I also believe,with you,that Bill Clinton will--if
left unsupervised--step in it on a national scale.He must.He's a black hole of self-centeredness.At some point(probably not too far away),I'm wagering that Bill must return the spotlight to Him.So,as you've pre-supposeed,he's very likely to do it destructively.That's the
psycho-pathology pure and simple.It must drive Mrs.Clinton's tighta**ed keepers to frequent frustration.Going to be interesting,NeoC! |
|
|
|