The Contrast Post

Two weeks ago, the International Association of Fire Fighters held a forum for presidential candidates in Washington. Most of the major candidates of both parties accepted invitations to speak and did so without incident. Hillary Clinton gave a solid if unspectacular speech. John Edwards and Barack Obama acquitted themselves nicely. Some of the minor Democratic and Republican candidates also appeared, for whatever that’s worth.

The media made a fuss over Rudy Giuliani declining an invitation to this event, noting Rudy’s often tumultuous relationship with firefighters while he was mayor of New York. But I think the media missed the real story, which occurred when Senator John McCain spoke.

One must understand that the IAFF is a conservative bunch. True, they have never endorsed a Republican for president, but that’s largely the work of the union leadership. The rank and file members of the IAFF are bedrock Republicans. This would seem to be a perfect audience for Senator McCain. He was introduced to an enthusiastic round of applause, and as the audience settled in to listen to the senator, one could reasonably expect him to do well with this crowd.

That’s not what happened. McCain launched into an energetic defense of the Iraq war. Here’s an excerpt from Dana Milbank’s account in the Washington Post:

McCain told the crowd the war “is not hopeless.” No response in the audience except for somebody coughing.

Reading his speech and stealing quick glances at his listeners, he continued. "The hour is late, but we must try, we must!" Beefy firemen, arms folded on chests, stared back silently.

This is not, I am sure, what John McCain thought his second try for the White House would be like. The senator from Arizona is already slipping in the polls. Chuck Hagel’s entry into the race could be the nail in the coffin, because Hagel occupies the same ground that McCain does, but with a critical advantage: he opposes the war.

I’ve struggled somewhat to write about Chuck Hagel. He’s an unknown quantity in national politics. He doesn’t have the outsized personality of John McCain. He doesn’t evoke the dramatic echoes of 9/11 like Rudy Giuliani. His candidacy doesn’t have the potential to make history like Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.

That’s not as much of an obstacle as it used to be, however. In the era of negative campaigning, 30 second attack ads, 527 groups, etc. you don’t have to define yourself, you only have to define your opponent.
While that’s not exactly the sort of optimism one would like a presidential campaign to be about, as Robert DeNiro says, "it is what it is."

Or, in another GoodFella-ism:

"You may know who we are, but we know who you are."

So let’s see how Chuck Hagel compares to others of his Republican brethren:

Let’s start with how this prospective president compares with the incumbent. George W. Bush is the son of a former president, evaded combat in Vietnam, failed as a businessman, and as president has led the United States into an unnecessary and disastrous war.

Hagel is a study in contrast. He grew up in a small town in Nebraska, the son of a lumberman. Charles Hagel died in 1962, when his eldest son Chuck was only fifteen. Five years later, Chuck went to Vietnam and served as an infantry sergeant. After the war, Hagel worked for a Republican congressman on Capitol Hill and later in the Veterans Administration.

After leaving government service, Hagel made millions in mobile phones and investment banking. He then ran for the Senate in 1996 and has made a name for himself by being the sole outspoken Republican critic of the war in Iraq.

In 2000, ironically, Hagel was considered as Bush’s running mate, a job that obviously went to Dick Cheney. It might be fun to compare these two as well. Take a look at this timeline, originally published by Slate magazine and enhanced at length by yours truly:

1959: Dick Cheney turns eighteen and becomes eligible for the draft.

February, 1962: Cheney is classified 1-A, “available immediately for military service.”

June, 1962: Cheney returns to Wyoming after doing poorly at Yale University.
January, 1963: Cheney enrolls at Casper Community College.

March, 1963: Cheney applies for and is given a student deferment, the first of three undergraduate deferments he would apply for and receive.

May 19, 1965: Dick Cheney graduates from college after six years. The Selective Service classifies Dick Cheney 1-A again.

July 28, 1965: President Lyndon Johnson says draft calls will be doubled.

Oct. 26, 1965: The Selective Service declares that married men without children, who were previously exempted from the draft, will now be called up. Married men with children remain exempt.

November 1, 1965 Cheney receives his fourth student deferment as he begins graduate school at the University of Wyoming.

Jan. 19, 1966: The Selective Service reclassifies Dick Cheney 3-A, "deferred from military service because service would cause hardship upon his family," because his wife is pregnant with their first child.

Jan. 30, 1967: Dick Cheney turns 26 and therefore becomes ineligible for the draft.

Summer, 1967: Chuck Hagel and his brother Tom are inducted into the U.S. Army. They are assigned to the same unit and become infantry squad leaders in the U.S. Army’s Ninth Infantry Division.

1968: The Hagel brothers are deployed to Vietnam. Chuck attains the rank of sergeant and wins two Purple Hearts for injuries sustained in combat.

1989: When questioned why he did not serve in the military, Secretary of Defense Cheney tells a Washington Post reporter: “I had other priorities in the '60s than military service."

That about says it all, doesn’t it?

So on a personal level, Hagel differs considerably from Bush and Cheney. He and McCain didn't have "other priorities." They wanted to serve their country, and did so with honor. That reflects well upon them, but the Republican nominee has to answer questions about Iraq, not Vietnam. So how does Hagel fare in that comparison?

President Bush thought this war would be quick and easy. Hagel knew better:

“We should not be seduced by the expectations of "dancing in the streets" after Saddam's regime has fallen, the kites, the candy, and cheering crowds we expect to greet our troops, but instead, focus on the great challenges ahead…We have heard precious little from the President, his team, as well as from this Congress, with a few notable exceptions, about these most difficult and critical questions. We need only look to Afghanistan where the Afghan people joyously welcomed our liberation force but, months later, a fragile transition government grapples with rebuilding a fractured political culture, economy, and country.” - Chuck Hagel, from the Congressional Record, October 9, 2002

Vice President Cheney thought that we were “winning” in Iraq and that the insurgency was “in its last throes.” Hagel knew better:

"Maybe the vice president can explain the increase in casualties we're taking," the Nebraskan told CNN.
"If that's winning, then he's got a different definition of winning than I do." - Chuck Hagel, August 18, 2005.

Now, two years later, McCain argues that we must continue the fight, that the surge is necessary and tactically sound. Hagel’s response?

Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska described the move as “the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam, if it’s carried out.” – on the Senate floor, January 11, 2007.

For these remarks and others, Chuck Hagel has earned the enmity of many Republicans in Washington. What Hagel perceives as his duty as a senator and as an American, others consider to be party disloyalty. Certainly Ole Dick isn't a fan:

“Let’s say I believe firmly in Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment: thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican. But it’s very hard sometimes to adhere to that where Chuck Hagel is involved.” - Vice President Dick Cheney, January 29, 2007.

The differences between Chuck Hagel and the party leaders are clear. They are just as stark as the differences between Hagel, who is not yet a candidate for president, and his potential rivals. There is a vacuum on the Republican right that McCain cannot fill, that Giuliani certainly cannot fill. Mitt Romney is trying to do so, but he’s troubled by the uncomfortable fact that he was a moderate Republican until he decided to run for president. While these three candidates compete for the centrist vote, the conservative base of the party, the folks who actually choose the nominee, are looking for a candidate.

Now, Hagel has challenges to overcome. He has to raise money. He needs to become better known. Perhaps most of all, he needs to develop a positive political persona. So far he’s only been the critic, telling us what we can’t do. He has to do more, he has to tell us what we can do, what’s possible, what to reach for. Despite what I said before about only having to define your opponent, there is still an advantage to be gained for a presidential candidate who can inspire people.

So the last hurdle to be overcome is history, the long standing tendency of Republicans to nominate the front runner. Yes, they go with a guy when it’s his “turn.” But if ever there were an election when a Republican could cut in line, this is it.

The Veteran Post

Let's take a closer look at another contender for the Republican presidential nomination, Senator John McCain of Arizona. I'm going to describe some events here that will be a bit unpleasant to read, but to understand John McCain, you've got to know what he's endured.

First, a little backstory for the politically disengaged. John McCain served in the Navy and is a veteran of the Vietnam War. He was injured in an explosion on the USS Forrestal in 1967 which resulted in shrapnel being lodged in his chest and legs. Despite this injury, he continued to serve as a pilot until his A-4 Skyhawk was shot down on October 26 of that year. The crash broke both his arms and a leg. He crawled from the wreckage of the plane, and was beset upon by a mob of Vietnamese citizens, who spat on him, kicked him, and stripped him of his clothing. He was then taken into custody by Vietnamese soldiers who bayonetted his left foot and groin, and crushed his shoulder with a rifle butt. Barely conscious after this ordeal, McCain was then taken to Hoa La Prison, better known as the Hanoi Hilton, where he would remain a prisoner of war for the next five and one half years.

McCain's father was an Navy Admiral who was the commander of all United States forces in Vietnam at the time of his son's capture. The Vietnamese learned of this, and the younger McCain was offered his release in a prisoner exchange program. McCain refused, saying he could not accept early release when so many of his fellow American prisoners had been incarcerated longer. This refusal extended McCain's incarceration by more than five years, during which time he was repeatedly tortured and beaten. He was finally released in 1973, returned to active duty, and retired from the Navy in 1981. In 1986, McCain was elected to fill the seat of retiring Senator Barry Goldwater, and has been re-elected three times. He sought the Republican nomination in 2000, and scored some early victories, but the nomination eventually went to George W. Bush for reasons that I will touch on later.

There are a lot of people in this country who think you have to have served in the military to be president, that you can’t be the Commander in Chief unless you’ve seen combat yourself. There’s just one problem with this idea, one teeny tiny little detail...

If this standard were applied to past occupants of the Oval Office when they ran for office, it would have disqualified Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt! Okay, technically, Lincoln served in the militia during the Black Hawk War, but he never saw combat. Kind of like George W. Bush.

Also, if we’re going to have this sort of requirement, then we have to extend it to other issues. For instance, Hillary Clinton would not be qualified to be president and confront the issue of abortion because she’s (presumably) never had an abortion herself. Barack Obama would not be qualified to be president and deal with race relations because he was never lynched by the Klan. John Edwards couldn’t become president and address gay and lesbian issues because he is not, despite what Ann Coulter says, a homosexual.

I was going to use the example of saying Rudy Giuliani couldn’t be president and deal with women’s issues because he’s not a woman, but…..

However, on balance, I would agree that it’s a plus if not a prerequisite for a presidential candidate to have served in the military. This is especially true for a president succeeding George Bush in office. It would be nice to have a president whose prior public service was in some way involved in foreign policy. John McCain could be that man. He has the political resume, and the physical sacrifice he made in service of his country is awe inspiring. This is a man who campaigns and climbs on stage and waves to a mass of enthusiastic supporters, just like any candidate does. But the difference is that McCain's waving is a bit restrained. Why? Because he can't raise his arms over his head. Let that one sink in for a second. A man who can't wave to a cheering crowd because he was hung by his arms for years.

So McCain has been the darling of the press, if not necessarily the Republican base for years. He has tremendous crossover appeal and could take away millions of votes from a Democratic candidate. Even more impressive, McCain appeals to independents and could even draw people to the polls who traditionally don't bother to vote. It's been a given for years that John McCain would be virtually unbeatable in a general election, if he can only gain his party's nomination.

And why shouldn't Republicans love him too? Whether they will admit it or not, they want a change, someone as different from Bush as possible, and McCain fits the bill. Consider:

- John McCain has developed a reputation for being a straight talker, whereas George W. Bush has developed a reputation for not being able to talk straight.

- During his Senate career, McCain has been deeply involved in foreign affairs, whereas in Bush’s time as governor of Texas he was deeply involved in…er….um….

- McCain, of course, served his country during the Vietnam War, whereas Bush was served many drinks during the Vietnam War.

- McCain is an independent thinker, whereas George W. Bush is dependent on others to do his thinking for him.

So it's obvious, right? Republicans looking for their next presidential nominee have a clear choice. They have the opportunity to nominate a man of integrity, a Vietnam veteran who knows what it's like to be a soldier in a hopeless situation. A man whose long experience in the United States Senate has prepared him to serve this country as president. Yes, ladies and gentlmen, the time has come for the Republican party to turn to....Senator Chuck Hagel!

That's right, Chuck Hagel. Who's he? I'll get to that in a minute. Let me first explain why the Republicans should pass on John McCain. As previously mentioned, in 2000 McCain ran for the Republican nomination against George W. Bush. McCain crushed Bush in New Hampshire, and headed to South Carolina. A win there would have probably given McCain the momentum necessary to capture the nomination. So naturally, the Bush campaign went negative. What else could they do? Tout their guy's credentials?

The Bush campaign in South Carolina (or their unofficial surrogates) ran a play right out of the Nixon playbook. Anonymous phone calls warned conservative Republican voters that John McCain had a black child out of wedlock. This "revelation" horrified racists and people with "traditional values" (In South Carolina, these are usually the same people, but that's another story). Not that it really matters, but the truth is that McCain and his wife adopted a young girl from Bangladesh. A noble thing, which was turned into an accusation. McCain lost the primary, Bush regained his momentum, and with his massive financial advantage, cruised to the nomination. Along the way, McCain criticized Christian conservatives, whom he blamed for his South Carolina defeat.

Now, seven years later, McCain is essentially kissing the very asses he once kicked among the Far Right, convinced that its his ticket to the White House. He once called Jerry Falwell (correctly) an "agent of intolerance." Now they're buddies! McCain even agreed to serve as the commencement speaker at Falwell's Liberty University last spring. This sort of pandering is bad enough, but in my view McCain did something even worse in his lust for the presidency: He pretended to like and admire the man who defeated him in 2000, President Bush. He endorsed him for re-election in 2004, campaigned with him, he even hugged him!

Why would he do such a thing? Because McCain knows Republican party politics. He learned it at the knee of his predecessor, Barry Goldwater. McCain is a student of history, and he knows the Republicans are the party of primogeniture. They nominate a guy when it's his "turn." I've mentioned this before. The Democrats will nominate someone you weren't expecting. They chose the young Catholic senator from Massachusetts in 1960, when no one thought a Catholic could be elected. They nominated an obscure former Georgia governor in 1976, and then a largely unknown Arkansas governor in 1992. But the Republicans are more predictable. They nominate the frontrunner, because its his turn. They haven't abandoned this tendency since 1952, when the Republicans nominated Eisenhower over a man nicknamed "Mr. Republican", Robert Taft, a Senator from Ohio and the son of a former president. They only did it then because they had lost five straight elections to Roosevelt and Truman, and they would have nominated Joseph Stalin if it meant victory in November. But other than that one year, the Republicans wait their turn. It was Nixon's turn, then it was Reagan's turn, then it was Bush Senior's turn, then it was Dole's turn, etc. Now it's John McCain's turn. And now that's he's made nice with President Bush, now that he's snuggled up to the Religious Right, he thinks he's in great shape. But there's one little problem.

There's a war going on in Iraq, one that as of today, based on congressional appropriations, has cost the American people $408 billion. There have been over 3100 American soldiers killed, more than 23,000 wounded. At least 58,000 Iraqis have been killed in the war. America has become perhaps the most hated country in the world because of this war, and John McCain wants to continue it. In fact, he wants to escalate it. McCain has gone from the "Straight Talk Express" bus tour of 2000 to being one of the people who say "Hey, if we leave Iraq, the terrorists will follow us home!" Even so, he still has integrity, at least on the war. He's willing to take an unpopular position. But will his party stand with him?

The Republicans should abandon McCain because he's turned into another double talking hypocrite, a man who pretends to like people he actually can't stand for the sake of getting elected. But chances are they will abandon him over the issue of Iraq. Yeah, Republicans generally favor the war, but they know it's a loser. They remember last November, when they got their asses handed to them. They have to put up with Nancy Pelosi holding the speaker's gavel in the House of Representatives, and they'll be damned if they want to see Hillary Clinton put her hand on the Bible and take the oath in January of 2009. So if they throw McCain over the side, they'll do it over the war. Ever since he came out in favor of the surge plan, he's gone from being in a virtual dead heat with Rudy Giuliani to being twenty points behind. And we already know what's gonna happen to Rudy, don't we? So the Republicans need a horse.

Which brings me to Chuck Hagel. He'll be the subject of the next post, but a quick word on the senator from Nebraska. This is a guy who genuinely is what McCain claims to be. This is a Republican senator who once said about the Bush Administration, "To question your government is not unpatriotic - to not question your government is unpatriotic." Echoes of Thomas Jefferson there. Not a bad comparison for a presidential aspirant to earn. Senator Hagel has come out full square against the war, and resisted pressure from members of his party to pipe down about it. Can it be? A politician who says what he thinks? Fire up the Straight Talk Express, there may be a new driver behind the wheel!

The Commander in Chief Post

2008 is shaping up to be a year in which foreign policy remains at the forefront of voter's minds. This is a rarity in American politics. Usually the economy and the personalities of the candidates are the focus of attention. But in post- 9/11 America, foreign policy has become a staple of presidential politics. So in honor of this new trend, before we examine any other presidential contenders, let's take a look back at the current occupant of the Oval Office when he was a candidate for president in 2000.

Of course, we know all about the sterling record of President George W. Bush, who has presided over the war on civil liberties - I mean, terror, excuse me - since taking office in 2001. We all know his exemplary conduct as Commander in Chief, particularly when he attacked the wrong country - I mean, America's enemies - and committed American forces to protecting freedom around the world. And we've all heard the stories of young George W. Bush, the heroic fighter pilot, who spent the Vietnam War flying jets in the perilous skies above...um, Alabama.

Wait, that's not exactly correct. Bush didn't report for duty most of the time.

Anyway, as a candidate for president in 2000, the soon to be CINC didn't really talk much about foreign policy. Maybe this was because the extent of his foreign policy experience was signing Dominicans to play for the Texas Rangers. Regardless, foreign policy was not a major issue in the 2000 election. The country was at peace. The horror of 9/11 was still a year away. Iraq was a non-factor. The budget was not only balanced, there was a surplus, and George W. Bush barely mentioned foreign policy in his stump speech in 2000, and avoided the subject whenever possible during the presidential debates.


For anyone considering voting for John McCain next year, consider this interesting exchange between moderator Jim Lehrer and Governor Bush in the second presidential debate, held on October 11, 2000:


MODERATOR: The use of the military -- some people are now suggesting that if you don't want to use the military to maintain the peace, to do the civil thing, is it time to consider a civil force of some kind that comes in after the military that builds nations or all of that? Is that on your radar screen?

BUSH: I don't think so. I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I'm missing something here. I mean, we're going to have kind of a nation building core from America? Absolutely not. Our military is meant to fight and win war. That's what it's meant to do. And when it gets overextended, morale drops. I strongly believe we need to have a military presence in the peninsula, not only to keep the peace in the peninsula, but to keep regional stability. And I strongly believe we need to keep a presence in NATO, but I'm going to be judicious as to how to use the military. It needs to be in our vital interest, the mission needs to be clear, and the exit strategy obvious."

Well! Isn't that interesting?!?

What does this have to do with John McCain, you ask? I'll get into the full biography of McCain soon, but for the moment, consider this: Presidential candidates rarely tell you what they're actually going to do if they become president. FDR and Reagan promised to balance the federal budget. Instead they dramatically increased it. LBJ promised to stay out of Vietnam. Two years after the election, there were half a million American soldiers deployed there. The first President Bush famously promised "No new taxes", a pledge he broke in his second year in office.

And now, in the early days of a presidential campaign, a majority of the American people want to see a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. The sooner the better. And yet Senator McCain, who is a candidate for president, is not for a withdrawal. As previously mentioned in this blog, he is for an increase in troop levels in Iraq. The point is this: When it comes to foreign policy, whether you agree with him or not (and I don't), John McCain will tell you what he really thinks.

When times are good, presidential campaigns are about fluff. When the economy is in good shape, when the country is at peace, we have time to worry about things like how silly Mike Dukakis looks riding on a tank, or whether Bob Dole is too mean, or whether you'd rather have Al Gore or George W. Bush over to the family barbecue(An actual polling question). And so, in 2000, times were good, and having decided that they would prefer to have a beer with Bush (even though he's a recovering alcoholic) the American people elected George W. Bush in a landslide, giving him a strong electoral mandate to enact his conservative agenda.

Wait, that's not right....I mean, after careful consideration of the issues, people decided that Bush was closer to their own beliefs, and narrowly elected him over Al Gore, who just lacked the resume necessary to be president.

Hang on, I don't think that's right either.....Hmm.

Wait, I've got it. And so, after eight years of record prosperity under Bill Clinton, the American people chose Al Gore to succeed him, with Gore's 24 years of experience in elective office, his comprehensive plans to extend American prosperity into the 21st century, his commitment to reducing the effects of global warming, and his basic competence on the issues of the day making the difference between himself and a candidate who was an irrelevant governor, a lackluster owner of a bad baseball team and a failed businessman.

But Bush became president anyway.

Now, finally, after eight years of George W. Bush, we're going to pick a new president. And the Republican Party will choose a nominee, hopefully someone who is qualified to be the Commander in Chief in fact, not just in name, if that person should be elected. We've already discussed the temporary frontrunner, Mr. Giuliani. Now it's time to take a closer look at Senator McCain.



A short biography of the senator and an assessment of his prospects will appear in the next post on this blog. Thanks for reading.

The Giuliani Post

So now we come to the contenders for the Republican nomination for president. Let's look at this in terms of strategy, or if you're George W. Bush, strategery. Today, we'll start with the man who according to the most recent polls is the frontrunner for the nomination, the former mayor of New York, Rudy Giuliani.

At first, I didn't understand why Rudy Giuliani would run for president. He's a smart guy, he's old enough to remember what happened to Nelson Rockefeller, what happens to New York Republicans with different ideas on social issues who run for their party's nomination. They're demonized, mocked, booed at the convention, and most importantly, not nominated. And that was the pre-Reagan Republican Party, when someone like Giuliani would only be tarred and feathered figuratively. Now, they might actually do it.

So why is Rudy running? Because he thinks he can take that political currency he built up as "America's Mayor" and buy a ticket to the White House. Maybe he's right, but not for the reason that many people think. More on that later.

When you look at the race for the Republican nomination, for Rudolph Giuliani to become his party's candidate for president, he will have to overcome two long standing axioms among Republicans: that the party faithful will not accept a social liberal as their nominee, and that Republicans are a party of primogeniture; they nominate a guy when it's his "turn", and it's John McCain's turn this time.

Let's look at the ideological question first. At the risk of overusing Kennedy analogies, Giuliani's current lead in the polls reminds me of JFK in 1960. Senator Kennedy held an early lead over Hubert Humphrey in heavily Protestant West Virginia. This was surprising because of Kennedy's Catholicism. So what happened? The voters of West Virginia learned more about Kennedy as Election Day approached, found out he was Catholic, and collectively said "Never mind!"

This is what's going to happen when Republican voters start paying closer attention. They're going to get a closer look at Rudy's position on abortion, on gay rights, they're going to see a picture of Rudy in drag, they're going to learn that he's on his third marriage after cheating on his second wife, and suddenly "America's Mayor" is not going to be twenty five points ahead of John McCain for the Republican nomination for President of the United States.

But here's the thing: JFK won the West Virginia primary in 1960, and maybe Giuliani can win the Republican nomination the same way: by reframing the debate. Kennedy turned the Catholic question around by telling patriotic tough minded West Virginians that nobody asked his religion when he commanded a PT Boat in the Navy during World War II, and nobody asked his brother's religion when he volunteered for a dangerous bomber mission that he never came back from. Kennedy spoke to the things that resonated with the particular voters he was courting, and diverted attention away from the aspects of his own personality and record that were less favorable to run on. Giuliani, if he walks a very delicate line, might be able to do the same thing. Here's how:

First of all, and this is purely a political calculation, Giuliani needs the war to continue, because while Giuliani is for it, McCain is REALLY for it. If McCain were a company, he'd be the corporate sponsor of the surge plan. This hurts McCain among independents and Democrats, generates negative stories about him in the press, and dampens speculation that McCain would be unbeatable in a general election, which was always presumed to be his strongest selling point. The continuation of the war also helps Giuliani by providing a nice contrast with the current occupant of the Oval Office, Dick Ch- I mean, George W. Bush.

This is the key point. It's not merely Giuliani running because he's a "hero." That doesn't get you elected. Do you remember President John Glenn? Didn't think so. No, Rudy's great opportunity here is not to run in the first open contest for the Republican nomination since 9/11, it's to run in the first open contest for the Republican nomination since 9/11 and eight years of the Bush Administration. It's not public desire for a hero that Rudy can capitalize on, it's the hunger for executive ability. It's not just 9/11, it's the cleanup of New York City, the ability to succeed as the Republican mayor of one of America's most heavily Democratic cities. It's the promise of managerial excellence at a time when mere competence would be a relief. Do you think if a major natural disaster struck the United States, President Giuliani would be playing the guitar?

http://hughesforamerica.typepad.com/hughes_for_america/2005/08/august_2930_200.html

A couple of final points: First, this commentary is not an endorsement of Giuliani's candidacy. If it were up to me, based on his record, I would vote for him - to be Chancellor of Germany, circa 1933. Second, in considering Giuliani's prospects, I'm pointing out HOW it can be done, not predicting that it will happen. It may be possible within the realm of physics to demonstrate how a snowball might prosper in a Hades-like environment. Whether it actually will? Don't put any money on it.

So, if not Rudy, then who? McCain? Romney? Brownback? The corpse of Ronald Reagan? (Hmm....)

In the near future I'll be examining the prospects for other contenders. And if it looks like I'm spending more time analyzing the Republicans than the Democrats, you're right. And the reason is simple: it's much harder to figure out why people vote Republican!



Postscript Wednesday March 7: See?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/07/giuliani.baptists.ap/index.html