The controversial appearance of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at Columbia University has come and gone with a truly sorry performance by all sides.
Ahmadinejad himself reportedly came off as you would expect, questioning 9/11 and the Holocaust and avoiding answering direct questions. School President Lee Bollinger proved an inhospitable host, calling his guest a "petty and cruel dictator."
Lot's of problems here.
You've I'm sure heard the objections over his appearance. That there is no need to give this guy a soapbox here on American soil, that it would be like inviting Hitler to speak during World War II, and that the school is happy to have an enemy of the United States on campus but not the ROTC. The response from university officials has been that it's a free speech issue and that he will reveal his true nature.
As it turned out, Bollinger apparently decided to appease his critics by appearing tough with Ahmadinejad. But really, all he did was insult a head of state who was his guest. If you're going to invite someone to your place, you may as well treat him graciously. May as well not invite him in the first place.
Second, did Ahmadinejad reveal his true nature? Sure, maybe he did. But didn't we know his true nature already? Was there anything left to learn about him? Not really. Maybe Columbia students still did need to learn Ahmadinejad's true nature. Maybe they didn't know enough about his record and his outlook on the world. That probably says far more about the quality of education and quality of students at Columbia than Lee Bollinger would want us to know.
---
If the elections were held today, Democratic candidates would win both houses of Congress and the White House with ease. However, the elections are more than a year away, and a lot can happen in the next 13 months-plus.
There are two things that could ruin Democrat plans. First, if things improve in Iraq as much as President Bush thinks, and the economy manages to remain on track. Second, even if those two issues remain muddled, the Dems could give it away through shear immaturity.
First, the infamous MoveOn.org advertisement in the New York Times about Gen. David Petraeus, which has already been brought up in this blog and millions of others. Most recently, a flap arose over an "editorial" in the Colorado State University student newspaper that contained all of four words: "Taser this, fuck Bush."
Uh, whatever, dude. While it's publication generated something of an uproar, the sentiment brings only a shrug of the shoulders. So you don't like Bush. Okay. Editors of the paper claim they ran a number of more eloquent anti-Bush editorials that were ignored. That means the student body simply has folks who don't share their opinion. If that frustrates them, if they're stunned that impressive prose does not sway the feelings of the student body, then they're probably not cut out for editorial writing when they graduate.
I have a five-word opinion piece for them: "Get used to it, dudes!"
For Democrats, these episodes have a way of raising their ugly heads every so often. The party still does not claim anywhere near a majority in this country, so they need to attract independents to win elections. Two displays of immaturity can be excused away as coming from the fringe. But if they keep happening, especially next year, then they'll reduce the party's chances of victory in November 2008.
---
Blast from the past on Clinton Inc.
And not to leave Republicans out: the major GOP presidential candidates spoke at a major party gathering in Michigan and put everyone to sleep, particularly Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani.
Monday, September 24, 2007
Monday, September 17, 2007
Staying in Iraq
All the debates over troop levels and withdrawal schedules, all the arguments over the veracity of statistics, the complaints about the lack of progress by the Iraqi government in any area, are just sideshows to what has now become absolute number one priority in our Iraq involvement: staying.
Remaining in Iraq and proving to al Qaeda, diehard Baathists, Iran, the Taliban and the world that our will to stand up to evil is for the long term -- and not subject to political expediency -- is the key to the eventual success of our policy.
The United States literally has to be the big kid on the block who sits down where he feels like it and refuses to get up for any reason whatsoever.
Simply staying put has so many strategic advantages that it boggles the mind that anyone is even asking for an immediate withdrawal.
First, while official Washington argues about winning or losing in Iraq, the fact is that we won years ago by removing Saddam Hussein from power and helping the Iraqis to hold several free elections. Remaining in Iraq in years since has simply kept our victory from being in vain. In that time, there have been no serious non-political threats to topple the elected Iraqi government, and no non-political chance that our armed forces would be kicked out of the country.
Meanwhile, as long as we've been there, we've managed to do some good with the surge. Our increased troop levels have allowed commanders to launch operations that have capitalized on improved relations with Sunni tribes in al Anbar province and other sections outside of Baghdad. Similar improvements in relations with Shiites are now in the offing.
Whether violence is up or down this month, or last month, compared to some other time might make for pretty charts to display to Congress, but means little to the effectiveness of our overall policy. That we are still there, holding up our victory, and getting important Iraqis to see things our way, means everything.
Second, Osama bin Laden has always told his followers that the United States would retreat if hurt a couple of times. After previous pullouts from Lebanon and Somalia, and a failure to follow through in the first Gulf War, bin Laden had every reason to believe this was the case. Even though a lot of Democrats and some Republicans have tried their best to bring the troops home, we have shown, instead, considerable staying power. We've withstood casualties, horrifying wounds, reversals in conditions on the ground and an Iraqi government that's unworthy of its people. And with every day we stay in Iraq, we prove bin Laden wrong to his followers, or potential future followers.
Third, while diplomacy is still the primary method of engaging Iran, keeping our troops next door maintains a certain amount of pressure. Up until recently, our difficulties in Iraq have been fun for them. But the tide might be slowly turning in our favor, albeit slowly, and over time our presence will be more uncomfortable for Iran than it will us.
Fourth, if we leave Iraq, we'll provide the Taliban and its supporters a reason to believe we will not stay much longer in Afghanistan, either.
Finally, the world has been waiting for us to fail in Iraq and go home with our heads between our tails. It has not happened. Since we invaded Iraq, more conservative governments have been elected to lead the nations that had been our biggest critics in the free world, France and Germany. Their leaders are, out of necessity, viewing the world our way, also. The world's less scrupulous leaders, from Iran to Syria to North Korea to Venezuela to, now, Russia, have also been waiting for us to fail. The longer we stay in Iraq, and the more the free world begins to fall in behind us, the less room those people will have to operate.
Therefore, we're going to stay in Iraq for years. That's just the way it is, no matter who wins the presidency in 2008. If Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama or John Edwards win the presidency, by Jan. 20, 2009, they'll conveniently decide that the situation on the ground has improved to the point that there is no need to withdraw.
Now, all this does not mean that there will be no changes in troop levels. President Bush has already approved reductions to pre-surge levels by next summer. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has suggested the cuts might be deeper, if success continues. But we will continue to have a substantial military presence in Iraq for the forseeable future.
---
In many ways, al Qaeda in Iraq is its own worst enemy. While our military has consistently respected the Muslim observance of Ramadan, the terrorists have not, and have launched a series of attacks in an effort to re-establish its relevance -- without looking at the calendar. While regular Muslims are observing Ramadan, the radical Islamists -- the ones who impose their vision of their religion on everyone else -- are not.
Remaining in Iraq and proving to al Qaeda, diehard Baathists, Iran, the Taliban and the world that our will to stand up to evil is for the long term -- and not subject to political expediency -- is the key to the eventual success of our policy.
The United States literally has to be the big kid on the block who sits down where he feels like it and refuses to get up for any reason whatsoever.
Simply staying put has so many strategic advantages that it boggles the mind that anyone is even asking for an immediate withdrawal.
First, while official Washington argues about winning or losing in Iraq, the fact is that we won years ago by removing Saddam Hussein from power and helping the Iraqis to hold several free elections. Remaining in Iraq in years since has simply kept our victory from being in vain. In that time, there have been no serious non-political threats to topple the elected Iraqi government, and no non-political chance that our armed forces would be kicked out of the country.
Meanwhile, as long as we've been there, we've managed to do some good with the surge. Our increased troop levels have allowed commanders to launch operations that have capitalized on improved relations with Sunni tribes in al Anbar province and other sections outside of Baghdad. Similar improvements in relations with Shiites are now in the offing.
Whether violence is up or down this month, or last month, compared to some other time might make for pretty charts to display to Congress, but means little to the effectiveness of our overall policy. That we are still there, holding up our victory, and getting important Iraqis to see things our way, means everything.
Second, Osama bin Laden has always told his followers that the United States would retreat if hurt a couple of times. After previous pullouts from Lebanon and Somalia, and a failure to follow through in the first Gulf War, bin Laden had every reason to believe this was the case. Even though a lot of Democrats and some Republicans have tried their best to bring the troops home, we have shown, instead, considerable staying power. We've withstood casualties, horrifying wounds, reversals in conditions on the ground and an Iraqi government that's unworthy of its people. And with every day we stay in Iraq, we prove bin Laden wrong to his followers, or potential future followers.
Third, while diplomacy is still the primary method of engaging Iran, keeping our troops next door maintains a certain amount of pressure. Up until recently, our difficulties in Iraq have been fun for them. But the tide might be slowly turning in our favor, albeit slowly, and over time our presence will be more uncomfortable for Iran than it will us.
Fourth, if we leave Iraq, we'll provide the Taliban and its supporters a reason to believe we will not stay much longer in Afghanistan, either.
Finally, the world has been waiting for us to fail in Iraq and go home with our heads between our tails. It has not happened. Since we invaded Iraq, more conservative governments have been elected to lead the nations that had been our biggest critics in the free world, France and Germany. Their leaders are, out of necessity, viewing the world our way, also. The world's less scrupulous leaders, from Iran to Syria to North Korea to Venezuela to, now, Russia, have also been waiting for us to fail. The longer we stay in Iraq, and the more the free world begins to fall in behind us, the less room those people will have to operate.
Therefore, we're going to stay in Iraq for years. That's just the way it is, no matter who wins the presidency in 2008. If Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama or John Edwards win the presidency, by Jan. 20, 2009, they'll conveniently decide that the situation on the ground has improved to the point that there is no need to withdraw.
Now, all this does not mean that there will be no changes in troop levels. President Bush has already approved reductions to pre-surge levels by next summer. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has suggested the cuts might be deeper, if success continues. But we will continue to have a substantial military presence in Iraq for the forseeable future.
---
In many ways, al Qaeda in Iraq is its own worst enemy. While our military has consistently respected the Muslim observance of Ramadan, the terrorists have not, and have launched a series of attacks in an effort to re-establish its relevance -- without looking at the calendar. While regular Muslims are observing Ramadan, the radical Islamists -- the ones who impose their vision of their religion on everyone else -- are not.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
The Week's Losers on Iraq, NFL Videotaping
After a week of political battles over our Iraq policy, it's pretty clear that the biggest losers in the drama are Washington politicians. All of them. And we're the worse for it.
From the disgraceful anti-Gen. David Petraeus advertisement from MoveOn.org in the New York Times to Democratic members of Congress to Republicans who failed to take advantage of a huge political opportunity, the political set came out smelling terribly soiled. Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker gave their reports, and you can take them or leave them.
The Petraeus or Betray Us smear ad might have had political repercussions if it had been published a year from now. It will have no effect on the primaries, Democrats and Republicans will not face each other for 14 more months, long after it's impact has dwindled.
It might prove useful to the GOP eventually, as a small part of a wider strategic campaign. Here's how. Think back to the end of the Clinton administration. After eight years of any presidency, including Bush's now and Clinton's then, voters get tired of certain aspects. In the case of Clinton, what we desired as much as anything in the White House was adult leadership.
Advance about seven years, and MoveOn.org showed that not much has changed on the Democrat side of the ledger. Petraeus or Betray Us? Wow, there's some real thinking that went into that one. Really clever. Really sophomore, actually. How nice for whoever came up with that ad, they can make a joke about somebody's name.
Remember, every four years we not only vote for a man to be president, but also for the type of person who will be Secretary of State, the sort who will represent us before the United Nations, and the staffers who will do the grunt work in all the various federal agencies. In 2004, we not only re-elected President Bush, but we returned Karl Rove, Scooter Libby and Donald Rumsfeld to their jobs.
If Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, or John Edwards win the presidency, it will be the type of people with the brash and moronic thinking of that advertisement who will take those positions. If we consider voting for Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney, we'll have to keep in mind the people they'll take to Washington with them.
The Republicans will probably spend the campaign season bashing us over our heads with their disgust of the ad, but by the time the elections arrive, we'll be numb to it. But if we're reminded about the type of people who will be filling thousands of executive branch jobs, it might give us pause.
---
President Bush could have improved his position on the Iraq issue considerably if he'd delivered a strong address to the American people tonight. The president has often done well when he's taken the offensive on the subject.
The president asked for support of the Iraq operation, but he gave no outline of what the next few months would look like. He basically provided a watered-down rehash of the Petraeus report, said he supported the initial drawdown of troops and hoped to bring home more members of the armed services as "success" permits.
That's not saying a whole lot. If he'd given us some sort of sense which way we were headed, how we'd confront Iran and Syria's meddling, whether we would take on Shiite extremists in Sadr City and the southern end of Iraq, we at home would have something to get behind. Now we have nothing to look forward to except another Petraeus report to Congress in March. After this week, that's not a thrilling prospect.
---
The failures of both Democrats and Republicans in Congress this week are already well-documented. Add Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island to the list after delivering the opposition response to Bush. I heard it on the radio instead of watching it on television. From that perspective, let's just say that someone who sounds like Baba-Wawa of Saturday Night Live fame trying to take on the president of the United States is bound to fail.
---
It's been difficult for me to reach a firm opinion regarding the discovery of the NFL's New England Patriots videotaping of opponents' sideline signals, a scandal that has resulted in the team and head coach Bill Belichick being fined hundreds of thousands of dollars, and the club forfeiting draft picks.
On the one hand, the NFL has clear rules about videotaping procedures. On the other, teams have scouted each other and tried for years to recognize opponents' tendencies. Technology has made the job easier and easier and allowed for deeper and quicker probing of other teams' propensities. For example, it's common now for players to come to the sideline on a change of possession to study polaroids of formations and coverages.
As someone who lives in the general area of a team that was upset by the Patriots in the playoffs last year, I should perhaps be more upset. But I'm not. If the taping was against league rules, then the perpetrators should be punished. I just don't see it as poor sportsmanship that some team used advanced technology to get a jump on the competition.
From the disgraceful anti-Gen. David Petraeus advertisement from MoveOn.org in the New York Times to Democratic members of Congress to Republicans who failed to take advantage of a huge political opportunity, the political set came out smelling terribly soiled. Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker gave their reports, and you can take them or leave them.
The Petraeus or Betray Us smear ad might have had political repercussions if it had been published a year from now. It will have no effect on the primaries, Democrats and Republicans will not face each other for 14 more months, long after it's impact has dwindled.
It might prove useful to the GOP eventually, as a small part of a wider strategic campaign. Here's how. Think back to the end of the Clinton administration. After eight years of any presidency, including Bush's now and Clinton's then, voters get tired of certain aspects. In the case of Clinton, what we desired as much as anything in the White House was adult leadership.
Advance about seven years, and MoveOn.org showed that not much has changed on the Democrat side of the ledger. Petraeus or Betray Us? Wow, there's some real thinking that went into that one. Really clever. Really sophomore, actually. How nice for whoever came up with that ad, they can make a joke about somebody's name.
Remember, every four years we not only vote for a man to be president, but also for the type of person who will be Secretary of State, the sort who will represent us before the United Nations, and the staffers who will do the grunt work in all the various federal agencies. In 2004, we not only re-elected President Bush, but we returned Karl Rove, Scooter Libby and Donald Rumsfeld to their jobs.
If Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, or John Edwards win the presidency, it will be the type of people with the brash and moronic thinking of that advertisement who will take those positions. If we consider voting for Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney, we'll have to keep in mind the people they'll take to Washington with them.
The Republicans will probably spend the campaign season bashing us over our heads with their disgust of the ad, but by the time the elections arrive, we'll be numb to it. But if we're reminded about the type of people who will be filling thousands of executive branch jobs, it might give us pause.
---
President Bush could have improved his position on the Iraq issue considerably if he'd delivered a strong address to the American people tonight. The president has often done well when he's taken the offensive on the subject.
The president asked for support of the Iraq operation, but he gave no outline of what the next few months would look like. He basically provided a watered-down rehash of the Petraeus report, said he supported the initial drawdown of troops and hoped to bring home more members of the armed services as "success" permits.
That's not saying a whole lot. If he'd given us some sort of sense which way we were headed, how we'd confront Iran and Syria's meddling, whether we would take on Shiite extremists in Sadr City and the southern end of Iraq, we at home would have something to get behind. Now we have nothing to look forward to except another Petraeus report to Congress in March. After this week, that's not a thrilling prospect.
---
The failures of both Democrats and Republicans in Congress this week are already well-documented. Add Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island to the list after delivering the opposition response to Bush. I heard it on the radio instead of watching it on television. From that perspective, let's just say that someone who sounds like Baba-Wawa of Saturday Night Live fame trying to take on the president of the United States is bound to fail.
---
It's been difficult for me to reach a firm opinion regarding the discovery of the NFL's New England Patriots videotaping of opponents' sideline signals, a scandal that has resulted in the team and head coach Bill Belichick being fined hundreds of thousands of dollars, and the club forfeiting draft picks.
On the one hand, the NFL has clear rules about videotaping procedures. On the other, teams have scouted each other and tried for years to recognize opponents' tendencies. Technology has made the job easier and easier and allowed for deeper and quicker probing of other teams' propensities. For example, it's common now for players to come to the sideline on a change of possession to study polaroids of formations and coverages.
As someone who lives in the general area of a team that was upset by the Patriots in the playoffs last year, I should perhaps be more upset. But I'm not. If the taping was against league rules, then the perpetrators should be punished. I just don't see it as poor sportsmanship that some team used advanced technology to get a jump on the competition.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Left Goes Nuts Over Petraeus Report
Here's your political system in a nutshell: the Republicans are stuck with people like Larry Craig, the Democrats are up to their eyeballs in the despicable antics of some of their own members of Congress, MoveOn.org and Code Pink. That really leaves little room for compliments.
However, let's give some hand claps to where they are due, Gen. David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker, who went to Capitol Hill to provide their viewpoints of the current status of the war, under conditions that would have in normal times caused grievous embarrassment for the hosts.
Before the general gave his statement, House Armed Services Chairchild Tom Lantos basically told him he was a stooge of the White House and what he said was not worth listening to. If Petraeus had more guts, he should have stood and offered to leave so as not to waste anyone's time.
I'm sure I don't have to run through the rest of the idiocy, from the Code Pink demonstrations to the statements leading up to the day by senators Biden, Durbin and Schumer. But let's just say that the security albatross that's always been on the neck of the Democrats just got much, much bigger.
The one thing I haven't heard in response to Schumer's blithering comment that gains in al Anbar province have been despite the surge, instead of because of the surge, is that all along we've been trying to get the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own security. Now that they have, this senator tells our military it was not because of them.
---
I see no need to comment on the Petraeus report itself. There is no way to prove or disprove his figures or his conclusions. If you actually read his statement, you will see that he says conditions have improved but there is still a long way to go. Anecdotal reports from Iraq over the past few months bear this out. The surge has improved conditions in some places, not others, and the Iraqi government has taken its own sweet time in taking advantage of this opportunity.
It is what it is, the saying goes, and you can take it or leave it depending on your point of view. If the left was so comfortable in its position, then the weirdness of the last few days would not have been necessary.
Meanwhile, a poll by the New York Times says people trust the military's assessment of Iraq more than that of Congress or the White House.
After today, that's no surprise, and the numbers probably skyrocketed even more in the military's favor. Meanwhile, that distrust of our civilian institutions has been earned in spades, which is what this blog is all about. We need to make changes in 2008, desperately, and we need to begin making them in the primaries.
---
As a reporter, I have some insight into how reader's views of a particular subject can be manipulated by how the story is written. Most of the time, it's very subtle comments in the background of a story, something which sets everything in context. Most stories of a continuing nature, like the war in Iraq, need a certain amount of set up in order to make the day's news make sense. That context is often where some manipulation occurs.
An example from this weekend from a news organization which apparently trotted out its C team so the other employees could watch football is perfect.
In a roundup of events in Iraq was an item about a car bombing in Sadr City that killed 15 Shiites. The reporter said it went against Bush administration claims of improved security in Baghdad. The trouble is that no one in a responsible position has ever claimed that the situation in Baghdad, particularly that slummy section of the capital city, has improved much at all. The claimed improvement is in Anbar and other outlying areas.
Petraeus' report did not differ from that assessment.
However, let's give some hand claps to where they are due, Gen. David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker, who went to Capitol Hill to provide their viewpoints of the current status of the war, under conditions that would have in normal times caused grievous embarrassment for the hosts.
Before the general gave his statement, House Armed Services Chairchild Tom Lantos basically told him he was a stooge of the White House and what he said was not worth listening to. If Petraeus had more guts, he should have stood and offered to leave so as not to waste anyone's time.
I'm sure I don't have to run through the rest of the idiocy, from the Code Pink demonstrations to the statements leading up to the day by senators Biden, Durbin and Schumer. But let's just say that the security albatross that's always been on the neck of the Democrats just got much, much bigger.
The one thing I haven't heard in response to Schumer's blithering comment that gains in al Anbar province have been despite the surge, instead of because of the surge, is that all along we've been trying to get the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own security. Now that they have, this senator tells our military it was not because of them.
---
I see no need to comment on the Petraeus report itself. There is no way to prove or disprove his figures or his conclusions. If you actually read his statement, you will see that he says conditions have improved but there is still a long way to go. Anecdotal reports from Iraq over the past few months bear this out. The surge has improved conditions in some places, not others, and the Iraqi government has taken its own sweet time in taking advantage of this opportunity.
It is what it is, the saying goes, and you can take it or leave it depending on your point of view. If the left was so comfortable in its position, then the weirdness of the last few days would not have been necessary.
Meanwhile, a poll by the New York Times says people trust the military's assessment of Iraq more than that of Congress or the White House.
After today, that's no surprise, and the numbers probably skyrocketed even more in the military's favor. Meanwhile, that distrust of our civilian institutions has been earned in spades, which is what this blog is all about. We need to make changes in 2008, desperately, and we need to begin making them in the primaries.
---
As a reporter, I have some insight into how reader's views of a particular subject can be manipulated by how the story is written. Most of the time, it's very subtle comments in the background of a story, something which sets everything in context. Most stories of a continuing nature, like the war in Iraq, need a certain amount of set up in order to make the day's news make sense. That context is often where some manipulation occurs.
An example from this weekend from a news organization which apparently trotted out its C team so the other employees could watch football is perfect.
In a roundup of events in Iraq was an item about a car bombing in Sadr City that killed 15 Shiites. The reporter said it went against Bush administration claims of improved security in Baghdad. The trouble is that no one in a responsible position has ever claimed that the situation in Baghdad, particularly that slummy section of the capital city, has improved much at all. The claimed improvement is in Anbar and other outlying areas.
Petraeus' report did not differ from that assessment.
Friday, September 7, 2007
A Playbook for Fred Thompson
After frustrating political followers for months with his teasing about getting into the presidential race, Fred Thompson's entry into the Republican field was actually rather impressive. He explained his actions -- and inactions -- and was actually pretty reasonable in suggesting there was no sense in campaigning before the traditional Labor Day start.
With deference to the coincidental beginning of the football season, here's an early-game look at what Thompson needs to do to capture the imagination of the American people -- not just Republicans who will vote in the primaries -- but all of us.
1. Continue with the plain talk. Some of your primary opponents have yet to give a straight answer to any question. Americans are now tired with the too-cute-by-half approach, which is why John Edwards is buried in the polls and Barack Obama can't get traction with voters in his own party. People want clear answers to some hard questions that face us.
2. Don't apologize for your conservatism. There's a lot about your ideology that works, and has been proven to work. Just because some Republicans in Congress, and President Bush, have often strayed from the philosophy, that's not your problem. The trouble is with your party, not you or your ideas.
3. Remain tough on terrorism. The things you said on The Tonight Show were right on point. We have to remain on the offensive. If the past six years have proven anything, it's that they attack when we let our guard down. When the left complains, feel free to ignore them.
4. Continue to assault the conventional wisdom. Also on The Tonight Show, you brilliantly challenged the widely held notion that the world hates the United States. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. The left and many of the world's elites hate the United States because we've proven that normal people like yourself can run things better than they can.
5. Stop dilly-dallying. As long as you're in, stay in. All the way. No time for cold feet now.
6. Your wife is an asset. Your opponents have been making disparaging remarks about her and her impact on your campaign. When they call her a "trophy wife," your answer should be "heck, yes" or "damn right." Let America get to know her and see her as the positive force you know she is.
7. Show voters how you will deal with a Congress that will almost certainly have a Senate in Democrat hands your first term. Since many of them are, at best, worthless blowhards, we want to know how you will get them to follow your lead and adopt your initiatives, not the other way around.
8. Follow the doctrine of the center. It's right on the top of the page.
With deference to the coincidental beginning of the football season, here's an early-game look at what Thompson needs to do to capture the imagination of the American people -- not just Republicans who will vote in the primaries -- but all of us.
1. Continue with the plain talk. Some of your primary opponents have yet to give a straight answer to any question. Americans are now tired with the too-cute-by-half approach, which is why John Edwards is buried in the polls and Barack Obama can't get traction with voters in his own party. People want clear answers to some hard questions that face us.
2. Don't apologize for your conservatism. There's a lot about your ideology that works, and has been proven to work. Just because some Republicans in Congress, and President Bush, have often strayed from the philosophy, that's not your problem. The trouble is with your party, not you or your ideas.
3. Remain tough on terrorism. The things you said on The Tonight Show were right on point. We have to remain on the offensive. If the past six years have proven anything, it's that they attack when we let our guard down. When the left complains, feel free to ignore them.
4. Continue to assault the conventional wisdom. Also on The Tonight Show, you brilliantly challenged the widely held notion that the world hates the United States. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. The left and many of the world's elites hate the United States because we've proven that normal people like yourself can run things better than they can.
5. Stop dilly-dallying. As long as you're in, stay in. All the way. No time for cold feet now.
6. Your wife is an asset. Your opponents have been making disparaging remarks about her and her impact on your campaign. When they call her a "trophy wife," your answer should be "heck, yes" or "damn right." Let America get to know her and see her as the positive force you know she is.
7. Show voters how you will deal with a Congress that will almost certainly have a Senate in Democrat hands your first term. Since many of them are, at best, worthless blowhards, we want to know how you will get them to follow your lead and adopt your initiatives, not the other way around.
8. Follow the doctrine of the center. It's right on the top of the page.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)