People let me tell you about my best friend:
Both Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama seriously jeopardized their chances in the general election by voting “no” on the issue of funding our soldiers in Iraq. It appears that both are trying to join John “Mr. Prell” Edward’s obvious efforts to buy the votes of the far left. This is clearly a panic move by both Obama and Hillary. They should understand that John Edwards is not going to win the nomination no matter how much he bends over for the crazy far left interest groups who think they run the democratic party. In the end, the Democratic party is not going to nominate someone with 0% chance of winning in the general election. I suspect Bill Clinton is so upset that he may actually cancel his date for tonight. Certainly he did not advise Hillary on this issue.
By voting no for funding our troops, both have made it easy to label them as non-supporters of the troops in Iraq. Even though Iraq is a very unpopular war at this time, it is clear that the vast majority of citizens want our troops to get as much support as possible. Still, I think Hillary and Obama will get away with this vote if Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney wind up as the GOP candidate. The country is suffering from George W. Bush fatique and both candidates views are too closely aligned with Bush’s. The country does not want a third term for Bush which is essentially what they will get from Thompson or Romney. The vote will not be a crushing blow to them in that case.
However, if Rudy Giuliani is the nominee (you all knew I was coming to this point) then they are in big trouble. Not only are Rudy’s social views much different from Bush’s but, unlike Hillary or Obama, he has executive experience. He can run as the ultimate outsider while at the same time portraying himself as a worthy commander in chief who can handle a crisis situation. He can separate himself from Bush. Rudy can successfully label them as unpatriotic.
Either way, this will prove to be an error in judgement.
May 29th, 2007 at 10:18 am
Why do you think the county is ready to move that far to the left just based on social issues?
If the social issues are the reason you back Rudy, that’s fine, just say so.
You talk about the war though, and on that issue, there is virtually no difference between Giuliani and President Bush (which is fine with me as far as I am concerned.) There is very little difference on the war between Rudy and Romney either, but Rudy is the one who actually seems to go out of his way to praise President Bush and to stick up for him, which I appreciate, but as you mention could *possibly* not be the best political strategy.
You make a good point about the country wanting to turn to an outsider/executive. Rudy has that experience in New York City, but typically, we elect Governors as President, which is what Romney is. Furthermore, while Rudy made his name as an attorney, Romney succeeded in the private sector by being a very good businessman and also helped save the Salt Lake City Olympics. By virtue of his private, public, and service sector work, Romney is seen as a “turnaround artist.”
If the election in 2008 is an anti-Washington one, Romney would stand to benefit as the *only* candidate in either party to have never worked in Washington.
June 1st, 2007 at 8:57 am
Corey,
I respect your position vis a vis Romney. I just don’t think that is where the majority of the country is at this moment. Both Romney and Thompson will get trounced in a general because they have nothing (well almost) to separate themselves from Bush.
I was not writing an editorial. Honestly, on a social basis, I think Romney is fine. I don’t think that is where the country is at the moment.
Of course, I could always be totally wrong.