And that is exactly correct.
Most politicians talk.
Rudy said what he would do (the impossible), and then he did it.
I make no secret of my support for Duncan Hunter, but I like to approach these things objectively, considering all the variables. I have a question for the Rudy supporters; particularly those who would ideally prefer a more conservative candidate, but who don't believe any of them are viable in the general election.
As far as I can tell, it's pretty universally accepted that the reason Republicans lost the majority last November was due to increasing sentiment against the war. Many Rudy supporters have stressed that his socially liberal positions shouldn't get in the way of our supporting him, because he's "right on the war" and that's the most important thing. So my question is this. If enough voters turned out to vote against the war to shift the balance of Congress, how do you see them not voting the same way in the Presidential election; i.e., voting against the war by voting against someone who, from our perspective, is "right" on it?
This is an honest strategy question.
A former speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, is also a proponent of the system. In an interview this week, he said the rest of the country could learn valuable lessons from New York City's successes over the last decade.
"I talk about it virtually everywhere I go," he said. "If crime is a significant concern, and it should be, then New York is the most successful experiment in saving people's lives and stopping crime in modern times."
Mr. Gingrich said that since 2005 he has been advocating inside the Department of Defense, State Department, and the White House for Compstat to be used to "manage projects like Iraq and Afghanistan."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1784447/posts