Rudy did an admirable job of rescuing NYC from the depths of misgovernment it reached under “General” Dinkins. The statistics of NYC recovery are undeniable for anyone who wants to look. His courageous and personal response to the 9/11/01 disaster contrasts him from the passive, overly delegative approach most politicians take.
Newt is right on that we are in a “Phoney War” phase of the War on Radical Islam. The worst is yet to come. Although I do not agree with Rudy’s social liberalism, I believe he is the only Republican who has the ferocious instincts needed to take on the Democrats with strong, clear, confrontational language; and then to take on the Islamic radicals without mercy, and without regard to the sovereignty rights of any nation—friend or foe—where radicals are sheltered or hiding. As for Fred Thompson, I will support him strongly if he gets the nod but based his lackluster role as minority counsel in the congressional Watergate investigations, and his less than successful investigation of the Clinton’s selling missile technology to the Chicoms for campaign loot, I do not believe he has the capacity to win or the will to succeed as President. The worst disaster that could ever befall this nation—with consequences more horrible that we can today imagine—would be another Clinton presidency. No matter who the nominee is, every conservative needs to make sure such a fate does not happen.
Good points, bro. I wouldn’t say YET that Ol’ Fred doesn’t have it, but there is good reason to think he may not.
I've never voted for a dem, but Rudy has some peculiar ideas for fighting terrorism.
The Unlikely Frontrunner - Is the GOP in for a Rudy awakening?
"Giuliani spends a good deal of every stump speech stressing the need for America 'to stay on offense' in the war on terror. His precise conception of that war, and his approach to foreign affairs in general, is harder to pin down. To the extent that he's amplified his view of the terror war, it seems much closer to the economic determinism of the moderate realist school than to the notorious butt-kicking strategy of the neoconservative warrior class. Indeed, he says the 'war on terror' is itself a misnomer; he prefers the term 'the terrorists' war on us,' which does sound rather more defensive.
"'Americans hate war,' he recently told the Churchill Club, a gathering of Silicon Valley executives. 'We're at war because they want to come here and kill us, not because we want to go there and kill them. We want to do business with them. We would love to have them all wired and part of the Internet buying American products, and then we'll buy their products. And then we'll have the kind of issues we have with China and India, like we used to have with Japan. But those are good issues to have. That's America, that's what America is about.'"
"In the end, he says, victory in the terror war may come down to commerce. 'Technology has transformed the world,' he told the executives. 'Part of the way we're ultimately going to win the war on terror is through that technology. We're going to win the war on terror because, yes, we have to be militarily strong, we have to consider defending ourselves, but ultimately we overcome terrorism when those parts of the world that haven't connected yet connect to the global economy.'"
"Consider China, he said. 'China has plugged in. It's still a dictatorship, and they have to overcome that. But they've plugged into the global economy. If you think of where the terrorists are coming from, those are places that haven't plugged in. Ultimately economic freedom pushes you to political freedom. . . . We need to be strong, we need to be determined, but we also need to connect as many of these [Middle Eastern] countries as possible to doing business with us, to being connected to the Internet with us.'"
Well said....I have real reservations regrding Thompson....would prefer Duncan Hunter ....but the WAR TRUMPS Everything ELSE.....