Election '08
Does anyone know - or at least have an idea of - who they will support in '08 for President? If interested, I'd like to know people's top 3 candidates so far. Obviously, a LOT can change by this time next year, but as of now mine are, in order:
Duncan Hunter: This guy is the only real-deal, red-blooded conservative in the Republican pool. He has Reagan written all over him. He is easily a long-shot, but after the (well deserved) beating the GOP took in November, maybe the establishment will finally freaking remember what got them into power in '94. The guy is a former Vietnam vet, has a son in Iraq, and is tough on illegal immigrants and Islamic fascists
Tom Tancredo: A pretty good conservative. Mostly a one-issue guy - illegal immigration - but if he can successfully tie that in to national security, which in theory shouldn't be tough, he might have a shot. However, he has an electability issue which not many people know about. In the summer of '05, in reply to a "what do we do if we lose a city to a nuclear bomb from Islamic terrorists" his response was something along the lines of (this is not even close to an exact quote) "I'm not sure, maybe we need to think about nuking Mecca". Not only is that not an appropriate response, but the media and Democrats will hammer him on it. Still, I want a damn conservative back in office, so he is #2.
Rudy Giuliani: Let's be honest, this man is a liberal-RINO in conservative clothing. Rudy is terrible on guns, abortion (I want Roe v Wade overturned so it goes back to being a state issue), and judges. Based on his personal life, his character may be in question, and I certainly don't want another "depends on what the meaning of 'is' is" BJ Clinton in the White House. Hell, John McCain is a much better conservative than Rudy. So, why is Rudy here and not McCain? Three reasons: 1) He's tough as nails on bad guys 2) His leadership on 9/11 leads me to believe he will be effective in the war on Islamic fascism. I think he will effectively work to undermine the Iranian and Syrian regimes, probably with a combination of military actions and other means - something that has been sorely lacking in all administrations since Carter, and 3) Unlike Jimmy Carter, Bush 1, Clinton, and Bush 2, Giuliani actually has the balls to tell the terrorist supporting Saudi's to fuck off. The Saudi's have successfully practically bought most of our politicians, including Presidents, and Giuliani isn't a part of that.
I strongly believe that trying to beat Islamic fascism w/o destroying the Taliban, Saddam's Regime, the Iranian regime (and by extension, Syria), and Sauid Arabia is like trying to win in Korea w/o attacking China - or trying to win in Vietnam w/o attacking North Vietnam and Cambodia. For all his faults, Bush has successfully destroyed the first two. Having said that, the Taliban has practically gained a new country to rule in one of Afghanistan's eastern-most provinces (wyjeristan?), and by Jan '08 - after we've left and declared "victory", no doubt - Iraq will be a proxy of Iran. Therefore, it's imperative that the next President has the leadership and communication abilities to lead this country in asymmetrical warfare. I'm a one issue voter, and the war is it. These are the three men that I think can do the best job of leading this country forward in this generational struggle.
People I'm lukewarm on:
Joe Lieberman (though I doubt he'll run)
Mitt Romney
John McCain
People I will absolutely, under no circumstances, vote for:
- Any politician who voted for the war in Iraq, but then decided to "change their mind" for political reasons. See: Chuck Hagel, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton.
So, does anyone want to participate? I'm curious.
Duncan Hunter: This guy is the only real-deal, red-blooded conservative in the Republican pool. He has Reagan written all over him. He is easily a long-shot, but after the (well deserved) beating the GOP took in November, maybe the establishment will finally freaking remember what got them into power in '94. The guy is a former Vietnam vet, has a son in Iraq, and is tough on illegal immigrants and Islamic fascists
Tom Tancredo: A pretty good conservative. Mostly a one-issue guy - illegal immigration - but if he can successfully tie that in to national security, which in theory shouldn't be tough, he might have a shot. However, he has an electability issue which not many people know about. In the summer of '05, in reply to a "what do we do if we lose a city to a nuclear bomb from Islamic terrorists" his response was something along the lines of (this is not even close to an exact quote) "I'm not sure, maybe we need to think about nuking Mecca". Not only is that not an appropriate response, but the media and Democrats will hammer him on it. Still, I want a damn conservative back in office, so he is #2.
Rudy Giuliani: Let's be honest, this man is a liberal-RINO in conservative clothing. Rudy is terrible on guns, abortion (I want Roe v Wade overturned so it goes back to being a state issue), and judges. Based on his personal life, his character may be in question, and I certainly don't want another "depends on what the meaning of 'is' is" BJ Clinton in the White House. Hell, John McCain is a much better conservative than Rudy. So, why is Rudy here and not McCain? Three reasons: 1) He's tough as nails on bad guys 2) His leadership on 9/11 leads me to believe he will be effective in the war on Islamic fascism. I think he will effectively work to undermine the Iranian and Syrian regimes, probably with a combination of military actions and other means - something that has been sorely lacking in all administrations since Carter, and 3) Unlike Jimmy Carter, Bush 1, Clinton, and Bush 2, Giuliani actually has the balls to tell the terrorist supporting Saudi's to fuck off. The Saudi's have successfully practically bought most of our politicians, including Presidents, and Giuliani isn't a part of that.
I strongly believe that trying to beat Islamic fascism w/o destroying the Taliban, Saddam's Regime, the Iranian regime (and by extension, Syria), and Sauid Arabia is like trying to win in Korea w/o attacking China - or trying to win in Vietnam w/o attacking North Vietnam and Cambodia. For all his faults, Bush has successfully destroyed the first two. Having said that, the Taliban has practically gained a new country to rule in one of Afghanistan's eastern-most provinces (wyjeristan?), and by Jan '08 - after we've left and declared "victory", no doubt - Iraq will be a proxy of Iran. Therefore, it's imperative that the next President has the leadership and communication abilities to lead this country in asymmetrical warfare. I'm a one issue voter, and the war is it. These are the three men that I think can do the best job of leading this country forward in this generational struggle.
People I'm lukewarm on:
Joe Lieberman (though I doubt he'll run)
Mitt Romney
John McCain
People I will absolutely, under no circumstances, vote for:
- Any politician who voted for the war in Iraq, but then decided to "change their mind" for political reasons. See: Chuck Hagel, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton.
So, does anyone want to participate? I'm curious.