Thoughts on the Rebublican debate tonight

[Taxman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Guiliani would be a terrible choice for President. I have no idea how anyone could think otherwise. Anyone could have been Mayor on 9/11, it just happened to be him. What qualifications does he have in national politics?

[/ QUOTE ]

As opposed to, say, being governor of a small rural southern state? Or a first term senator who basically started running for president two years into office? Or even a frontier lawyer with a total of only four years as a House member? Being mayor of New York may not be running the Allied war effort in WW II, but it's a heck of a lot more qualifying than the qualifications some past occupants or current candidates bring to the table.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, all of those people would be better qualified. I really don't see how you can believe otherwise. In any case, even if you disagree with that statement, that does not make Guiliani a good candidate. Or is your claim that every one of his competitors is less qualified than he is? I never named my own political affiliations. I just see it as being blatantly obvious that Guiliani is not the best option.

[/ QUOTE ]

History has shown that past job experience ("qualifications") is no indicator of on-the-job performance as president. It's not like the person has to do every job themselves, they only have like a ton of experts they can call on to help. What job exactly would qualify one for President of the United States? Perhaps we should let the candidates run small South American countries first, just to see how they'd do with a lesser post, before moving them up the presidential ladder to the really big countries?

And for the record, I think you are way underestimating what it takes to be mayor of New York, or any large city for that matter. You can argue how successful he was, or whether he deserves the credit he claims, or his methods and policies, but he was far from a failure as mayor. Some mayors really screw up their cities, or are terribly ineffectual, you can't say that about Giuliani.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said those things. I do think that experience in national, and preferably international politics is a quality most people would like to see in a Presidential candidate. That doesn't mean that it's necessary, but that's like saying it's not necessary to have a business background to be a CEO. Guiliani may have a small amount of national political acumen, but he has nothing on the international stage, and he really has not shown that he can do more than shmooze and kick homeless people into dark corners. Ultimately, he looks like middle management (at best) trying to jump straight to the top.

In any case, you dodged my point. Is he the best qualified candidate, in your opinion? Personally, I have a hard time accepting that based purely on the facts of his history. Of course, I also am not one of the people that thinks he was the best thing to happen to New York since sliced bread, so yes, I am biased. Maybe if he could get through a public appearance without milking 9/11, I would respect him a tiny bit more. Of course, without 9/11 it's doubtful most of us would have even heard of him.