I believe that Rudy Giuliani would be the toughest guy on terror. I don’t know why. I just get that feeling. We know he’d stay on offense and I just get the feeling that he’d look his cabinet in the eyes and tell every one of them that stopping and killing terrorists is job one. I think he’d allocate the resources necessary and not be one bit squeamish about terrorists being forced to listen to Keith Olbermann re-runs late into the night – the worst kind of torture I can think of - to get information. On a scale of one to ten, I’d give Giuliani a 9.9.
Fred Thompson is my second choice among Republican candidates. He gets it. He even articulates it well - not as well as Giuliani - if you can get from sentence to sentence without dozing off. On O’Reilly last night he knocked it out of the park. He described the number one issue of this election as the threat of Islamo-Terror-Fascists using new methods and new weapons – read nukes and bio weapons – trying to destroy America. I’d give Thompson a 9.8 only because he doesn’t articulate the issue as well as Giuliani.
Mitt Romney is next only because Thompson is my guy. So, I put my guy second. Romney is an expert manager. He can identify the fire closest to his feet and is certain to allocate the necessary resources to tend to it. Romney gets a 9.79.
McCain is third. He’s probably as strong as any of the others but he doesn’t strike me as quite as willing to lay waste to terrorists as the other two. Why? Well first, he seems to think shoving bamboo under a terrorist’s fingers to get the location of the nuke set to off in a US city in an hour would violate the poor dear’s rights. Giuliani or Thompson wouldn’t wait half a second. Also, the, "I'll get bin Laden" comment strikes as Edward's, "If you elect me Christopher Reeves will walk again." Just a line of crap. Then there’s his whole, ”they are all God’s children” shpeel used by McCain in the immigration issue. I suppose that argument would have to extend to the terrorists as well. I give McCain a 9.
Last among viable GOP candidates is Huckabee. Given his record in Arkansas and his comment about shutting ‘Gitmo down, this guy is likely as not to pardon everyone held there. Then there is his whole “arrogant foreign policy,” “Bush’s bunker mentality,” and “treat them as we would want to be treated” crap. I don’t think we can afford to come out of the bunker, sit down with terrorists over green tea and biscuits and tell them we’d like to help them achieve their goals because that’s how we would want people to treat us. Huck gets 5.5.
Dems will never be able to take the terror war seriously because they will be too busy trying to turn America into a welfare state. Listen to their debates. Universal hangnail insurance gets more attention than the war on terror. They are too naive.
Shrillda Beast would be the best on this issue. Not because she gives a crap about America but rather because she cares about her legacy. Who wants the “I lost the Middle East and Europe to terrorists” legacy? I’d give the Shrillda a 5.
Obama would be next because he's inexperienced. Because he’s inexperienced, he’d have to have enough adults in the administration to guide him through the issues. I’d give Obama a 4.
Dead last would be John Edwards. This guy would be so busy redistributing everybody’s money – except his own of course - he wouldn’t care if the entire Middle East were on fire. Edwards get 1.2. The only reason he doesn’t get a zero is that he’d want oil companies to be able to do some business in the Middle East just so he could take any money that they might make and use it to finance universal tire rotation insurance.
Tomorrow, territory.
No comments:
Post a Comment