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.

[Taso]

You're kidding right? People around the world knew who Rudy Giuliani was before 9/11.

I really don't pick who I want for president based on their qualifications. Back to Washington, the president has had an experienced cabinet. So, I pick the candidate whose views/posistions I agree with the most - Giuliani.

[MrMon]

[ QUOTE ]
I do think that experience in national, and preferably international politics is a quality most people would like to see in a Presidential candidate.

[/ QUOTE ]

History proves you wrong. Almost all recent presidental winners have started out as governors, not as national or international politicians. Bush 41 was the last national politician initially elected, you could argue he was a stand-in for a third Reagan term, and he was tossed out by a governor. The last sitting Senator was Kennedy in 1960, nearly 50 years ago. Nixon was a VP, so other than Bush 41, you can see that since 1976, the electorate really DOESN'T care about national or international experience, whether they're electing Democrats or Republicans. Being inside Washington actually seems to hurt, not help.

Now Democrats seem to love the idea of nominating a Washington insider with lots of intelligence and national and international experience, but they've only succeeded when they've gone outside of Washington (Carter & Clinton). Has that changed? We'll see, but for a long time, the public seems to prefer little to no prior international or national experience.

[Copernicus]

The most important international experience is in two areas..terrorism and trade/global economy.

Through Giuliani Partners RG is far more experienced than any other candidate in security and preparation for terrorism. He has helped build a NYC anti-terror organization that is superior to everything done at the Federal level.

Trade and global economy? NYC is the de facto capital of the world. Every trading nation has a presence in NYC, and something like 10% of the jobs in NYC are with foreign companies.

There are no Rep candidates that come close in actual international experience , and HRC is the only one on the Dem side, by osmosis.

[Taxman]

Dodging my point again. All things being equal, most people would prefer someone with more expertience. That is all I am saying. And no matter what you say, Guiliani does not have more pertinent experience than most of the other candidates (Republican ones! I am not talking about Democrats here). I actually agree that governors are the best choice, over senators. I never said otherwise. But governors have far more experience in big picture politics than mayors. Governors are the head of semi-sovereign states. They act as “Commander in Chief” of the National Guard, they veto bills from the state legislature, they can pardon criminals, they worry about the economic, social and security needs of more than just a single city. They have to deal with far more pressure and responsibility than a governor (blab la, yes, some states have a lower population than New York City). It’s also fallacious to claim that election results illuminate the best candidate. Popularity does not equal ability.

The claim that New York being a world financial center makes Guiliani the most qualified candidate in international politics is tenable, but clearly false. Running a city where a lot of international transactions take place does not equate to experience regulating an international economy. Assuming it were true, should we start encouraging every ex New York Mayor to run for president? Or how about former mayors of Chicago, Los Angeles, and San Francisco? All of those cities are world financial/cultural centers in their own right. Or how about New Orleans? They had a mayor in charge during a difficult time, so he must be a great choice for president. Perhaps New York is the brightest star, but if Guiliani is the best candidate, then mayors from those other cities should at least be able to compete at the second tier level since they are all apparently more qualified than any other recent candidates.

And then there is the matter of national security. First, not to mention some questions about Guiliani bungling a few matters on that front, he is certainly not the only mayor who secured his city post 9/11. He was, of course, the only one to have the national spotlight on him the whole time, and the only one to really get much credit for his work. I suppose you think that our 50 governors were sitting on their hands this whole time as well. Your arguments imply that Guilini is somehow more special than anyone else in a similar position and saying “New York is the greatest city in the US” can only take you so far. Just like Guiliani can only go so far riding the 9/11 horse. He should try to learn from George Bush about that.

I can understand wanting to vote for the candidate that most closely shares your own politics, but that too is completely independent from their ability to lead our nation.

[MrMon]

I'm not dodging your point. I just disagree with it. The real qualifier in the mind of voters is "appearing presidential". You do that by being an executive, the head of something, which is exactly why governors win out over senators or representatives. I would put being mayor of a big city as being an executive, especially being mayor of New York. Yes, Chicago or LA or SF would qualify. New Orleans was clearly a joke and an example of a failed mayor. The only problem with mayors is, they often come from single party politics, where compromise is not an issue. Which is why Daley, as successful as he is, really isn't a candidate for national office, he's more about running the place as a machine. LA is not exactly a success story, nor is SF, which is too liberal to produce a national candidate.

[Taxman]

Fair enough. Perhaps I am wrong about what other people want and am just projecting what I want [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I still think several of the Republican candidates are better options, though.