So far as I can tell, the American voter is frustrated. It's been a long time since I've seen this much 'concensus' on the various boards that I haunt. I'm not particularly partisan. I try to look a what is, rather than what I want. When I put on my famous author hat and step out in to public, I spend a lot of time talking with people about the electoral process and what their options are, regardless of who the candidates might be. The days of voting the party line are over. that stragegy is just not safe any more.

Justin Oldham following up from your above post the question is this.
How does voters no longer voting along party lines effect the Republican candidate who gets the nod ?
We know that Rudy is respected by those on both sides of the political spectrum.
So without covering old ground on this thread can Rudy gain the support of his core supporter base while retaining the respect he has ?

The answer to the above question has probably already been covered on this thread but the question helps to get my point across.

From what I have read on ATS it seems like that Democrat voters are more likely to vote for Rudy then Hillary in some cases. I am yet to encounter an incident where a Republican is going to vote for Hillary.

I'm sorry if I have gone off topic.

I don't think you've gone off topic. The whole point of this thread is to kick around thoughts on how a conservative is going to get elected, given the present state of affairs.

As you know, the House today passed its non-binding resolution. They're playing a very high stakes game of poker. The 182 persons who voted against that resolution have for all intents and purposes bet on a 'win' in Iraq.

If I had rudy's ear for just a few minutes, I'd tell him to state pro-war things, while at the same time warning against failure. "When this thing goes south--and it will--I am your man." I'd suggest this because it's time to up the ante, so to speak.

If Giulliani's team can sculpt a message that looks past the present state of affairs to a near-future wherein a person of action is called for, he can make himself stand out versus a Democrat. The Dems have gambled all on an anti-war message. Whoever states what they'd do if the war gets out of control before the other guy does...might...sieze the initiative in such a way as to rekindle new interest on the part of jaded voters.

[edit on 17-2-2007 by Justin Oldham]

There is a difference between being realistic about the war in Iraq and its outcome and wanting the coalition to fail in its mission. The American right dosnt grasp or chooses not to grasp this fact. any remote talk of failure gets you accused of being in the terrorist camp.

That aside.

The "When this thing goes south--and it will--I am your man." and "being a man of action " slogans would make great TV ads but the slogans will run into a road block. Now I know that society in general is being dumbed down but someone is bound to ask the following questions.

Just what is your plan of action for the war in Iraq ?
Just what is your plan if Iraq becomes an Islamic state ?

Of course Rudy dosnt have any plans because it is up to military leaders with brains and a backbone to answer the first question. Its reasonable to assume that the current civilian leadership wont change there approach to the war in Iraq. Rudy could point out that Bush is/has used twenty one thousand US troops as political pawns and that he is ensuring that the Iraq problem is passed on to someone else.

Rudy best bet is to avoid the topic of Iraq as much as possible and run a America first campaign with the main focus being on domestic issues such as health care.

The only way I can see Rudy having a plan for Iraq is if he supports the partitioning of Iraq which I mentioned earlier.As much as I support Rudy Whitehouse bid Nixions peace with honour and plan to win the Vietnam war springs to mind way to much.

On the other hand by 2012 the coalition role in Iraq will be or be close to being over and someone will face political repercussions of the results of Iraq's civil war unless they have somehow have managed to pass the buck along. Rudy could then come along and defeat the incumbent and play a Ford like role and help the US to heal its divisions and move on.

It just occurred to me that if I was an advisor to Rudy I would be persuading Powell to change his mind about running in 2008 and look to take Powell on as the VP.

[edit on 17-2-2007 by xpert11]

Good points all the way around, but I just don't see how any candidate can avoid talkingabout this war without being called on it. Politics is like chess, and the winner are often one move ahead.

Here's the ting. You did answer your oqn question. the answers to those questions canbe drawn from the best military minds. All Giulliani has to do is endorse the best of those answers. On other boards, i do champion
the idea of an America First candidate. I think the voters are hungry for a message like that just now. Whoever has the nerve to embrace it could tap in to a huge reservoire of public sentiment.

I don't want the war to go bad, but the realist in me says that it will. a) Recruitment of the all-volunteer force is breaking down. b) foriegn backed fighters in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Lebanon are gaining strength at a time when U.S. political will is failing. c) the U.S. miliary is simply too small to handle the task set before it.

You've read here and in many other places that winning the shooting war isn't that hard modern capabilities. Winning the peace long enough to build nations is harder than was previously believed. As we now know, keeping the peace requires about three times as many troops as it did to win the war.

This isn't the type of nationalist-expansionist war that we've been used to in the past. As much as it turns on religion, it's more a clash of civilizations. I don't think there's a U.S. politician alive right now who is willing to say that in front of a t.v. camera, but there it is. Our leaders are so hung up on NOT calling the extremists what they are that in addition to their fear of the body bag...they fear public perception.



Whoever has the nerve to pre-position on the war's failure now will have the flexibility later on to moderate their views and possibly even back-track or apologize as necessary. I've already predicted in my published work that trans-natinal terror will follow us home from our failed foriegn policy.

It's true that such a terrible thing will present future leaders with some new and very juicy options to exploit us...but...it also presents a future leader with the once-in-a-lifetime chance to really be a Man Of The People. Rudy's 9-11 image seems ready made for that role, if he or his handlers can be wise enough to see it and move toward it slowly.

I have my suspicions that Mr. Powell is done with public life. With a ll due respoect, I disagree with the notion that he has no 'stank' on him. Regrettably, his detractors will make much to-do about the fact that he knowingly carried bad water for the Bush team.

In purest professional terms, I'd be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt if he had enough constructive criticism to offer on the subject of the war. I've been a bureaucrat, and sometimes your job really does demand that you support some undesireable things.

Having said that, I don't think Powell wants to be bothered with public life any further. He's done his part, and made his millions. I can't say that I bedgrudge him the chance to enjoy it in his twighlight years. I have no doubt that he has earned a special place in the history books for his career and his eventual recanting of the Bush policies. We should all be so loucky to have such a good public image.

Now, then. On the subject of gun control, I think I might counsel Giulliani to keep quiet on the matter unless somebody else brings it up. As we saw in his New Hampshire appearnaces this weekend, he is slowly moving to the right on a number of issues, and he's doing it with more style than McCain is. If you follow his televised appearaces, you may have noted that John McCain is having vocabulary problems. That man needs a new speech writer.

I did take time out of my busy Saturday to tune in to C-SPAN long enough to get a sense of what silliness was going on in the Senate. We need to remember that the Senate is a numerically smaller body than the House of Representatives. What you saw this weekend amounted to a stiff and bitter defense mounted by the Republicans.

Even so, I couldn't help but notice that the Democrat leadership was willing to let them speak, as they pleased. For those of you who follow parliamentary procedures, there's an interesting game being played. It's called giving the minority enough rope to hang themselves. I don't know who is advising the GOP on this matter, but they need to be fired.

posted by Justin Oldham

The idea seems to be to accelerate the current deployment schedules while at the same time extending the tours of troops already in theater by at least 5 months. Follow the money and pay attention to the finer points of strategy used by either side. I don't predict GOP failure because I am against them. I am a conservative and I hate to see my team lose. None the less, I do see trouble for them because they are not playing the game very well at this time. [Edited by Don W]

J/O, the underlying cause celebre (or is raison d’etre better?) is the president has lost ALL his credibility because he lied to the American people. When I was in the court system, people we prepared to testify under oath were given a very concise warning, the truth may hurt but “liars lose.” See Aesops Fables.

I think everyone knows it is the dreadfully unpredictable consequences of our leaving Iraq that is the underlying issue. Colin Powell warned, “You break it, you own it:” But B43 fired him. We have mucked up Iraq more than any human could have ever imagined. Iraq is now so broke it cannot be fixed. It must sort out its own future. As in the Spanish Civil War, 1936-1939, which is now being offered as the closest historic parallel. Regrettably, no one can see what really will happen in Iraq or anywhere.

Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Hezbollah, Hamas, the long imprisoned Palestinians and Israel are all part and parcel of the problem and are inextricably bound up in any solution. But B43 disavows the obvious. Oh, you could throw in Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Russia, along with France and Germany, too.


[edit on 2/18/2007 by donwhite]

Justin Oldham your probably right about Powell but there is always wishful thinking.
What would you advise Rudy to say when he is asked about gun control ?

If I put on my political strategist hat, I've got to suggest to every GOP candidate who is seeking the office of President that they dont say a word about the second amendment until they are asked.

Here's why. The issues which hold everyone's attention just now are large and very divisive. There's no point in bring another one to the table when you don't have to. When it comes to Iraq, Afghanistan, or the economy, no one single answer is going to satisfy enough people to keep the candidate(s) out of hot water.

If we assume that Mr. Giulliani is going to take a moderate position on the war, with only the lightest of criticism for President Bush, he's going to ned an answer for the second amendment question. Always good to have one in your back pocket so that you can respond when somebody asks. When actually asked, he's got two real choices.

He can be fore it without hesitation or reservation, taking a strict stand. this leaves no room for guessing. Or, he can be for it with limited caveates. By this, I mean he should be prepared to suggest...(wait for it)...improved law enforcement, stricter sentencing for gun crimes, and an expansion of firearms registry.

Option One:

There is so much waffling going on in political circles these days that all you need is a little syrup and you've got your own breakfast buffet. t ostand out, Rudy needs to appear to be the man of action that so many think he is. You can't get any more 'decisive' than to take a no-frills stand on an issue.

Taking a strict stand on this issue can mean almost anything you want it to. It can mean actually enforcing the laws we already have on the books. Remember that a lot of those laws require tons of information tracking. There is wiggle room for new laws. Above all else, it means that the 'sanctity' of the second amendment remains unchallenged.


Option Two:

Need some bacon to go with your waffles? Vocal support of the second amendment will always play well. The pork comes in when you're willing to entertain the idea of expanding government just a little teensy bit to accomodate new rules and enforcement machanism. In politics, you often have to give in order to receive. If Rudy needs to make deals with a Democrat-lead House and Senate, this might be one of them.

I make no secret of the fact that my published work examines the implications of Option Two, and I'm not for it. Even so, these are the two best real options for any Republican who has to deal with this issue.

[edit on 18-2-2007 by Justin Oldham]

[edit on 18-2-2007 by Justin Oldham]

There ya go. As predicted, McCain has no choice but to come out with some degree of criticism of the Bush administration. Remember that he's so utterly linked to this war that he has no choice but to say 'something' that kinda sorta sounds like a rebuike, no matter how mild it really is.

Originally posted by xpert11
Interesting a less then subtle(SP?) change from McCain is blasting Rumsfeld something of a back flip.

McCain may have found some nice things to say at Rumsfeld's retirement, but he had been a very outspoken critic of him way beforehand. I don't see this as any significant change.

I do think the McCain shift is significant. It means that from now on it's okay for other GOP hopefuls to mildly bash Bush. I don't think that McCain had any choice, in the matter, if he really wants to be President. He's been too cozy with the Bush administrarion's myopic stance on this war. I'm glad to see that somebody finally got to him.

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
It means that from now on it's okay for other GOP hopefuls to mildly

But that's the point, he's really not bashing Bush, he's blaming Rumsfeld. Isn't that what this means:

failed to address the reality that President Bush is the commander in chief.

?

Believe me McCain has been bashing Rumsfeld for years now, his retirement party notwithstanding. He said that he had no confidence in him a long time ago and said he would replace him if he was president on the Sunday news talkshows.

posted by Justin Oldham

There you go. As predicted, McCain has no choice but to come out with some degree of criticism of the Bush administration. Remember that he's so utterly linked to this war that he has no choice but to say 'something' that kinda sorta sounds like a rebuke, no matter how mild it really is. [Edited by Don W]

J/O, I have heard some respected commentators assert John McCain is a born again Neo Con. Primo. I confess I do not know much about their core beliefs - don’t want to know - hope it is a passing phenomenon - what I do know I don’t like - I liken them to proto-Fascists.

As I recall McCain’s position, he always wanted MORE troops in Iraq, to pacify the country. He criticized the Oberfuhrer, Herr Rumsfeld, for not having enough troops, not for having too many. For having insufficiently armored vehicles, not for being overly armed. Then, when he heard about the so-called surge, that is, the B43 escalation of our troop strength in Iraq, he was for it (privately) but realized the post November 7 circumstances dictated he now become a critic.

John McCain, like Butch Cunningham, will always be a hero in my mind, each for the service they rendered to their country. But that does not make McCain right all the time. If I was a lame duck president like B43, I’d commute Cunningham’s sentence to time served and put him on probation or home arrest for the remainder. Hmm?

I would wait to make sure that the media reports are accurate. Someone in the candidates camp would do there homework there is no use making a fool of oneself. Assuming that Iraqi security forces are taking over I would thank the Poms for there contribution and say that the locals now have a chance to uphold the umbrella of democracy that every one deserves to live under.

I would hope that "somebody" in the Bush camp would be smart enough to sell it htat way. It's not what it is. It's what it looks like that matters when you're talking politics.

I think the Republican front-runners would benefit from spinning this as a "win." My hope isthat when Mr. Blair makes his anouncement that he will be thinking along similar lines. If he can actually say that British troops aren't needed any more because they've done their job--and they're being replaced by Iraqi forces--Mr. Bush would have a lot to talk about that would be "good."

posted by Justin Oldham

“ . . the McCain shift is significant . . from now on it's okay for other GOP hopefuls to bash Bush . . McCain had [no] choice if he wants to be President. He's too cozy with the Bush stance on this war. It's not what it is. It's what it looks like that matters when you're talking politics.

I think Republican front-runners would benefit from spinning this [first UK drawdown of troops from Iraq] as a "win." When Mr. Blair makes his announcement he will be thinking along similar lines. If he can say British troops aren't needed any more because they're being replaced by Iraqi forces - Mr. Bush would have a lot to talk about that would be "good" for the Republicans. [Edited by Don W]

Prince William. The UK withdrawal from Iraq is all about the safety of Prince William. Heir (probable) to the British throne. The prince is now graduating from military school and his unit is in line to pull its turn in Iraq. To the ordinary Brit, going to Iraq in 2007 is equal to going to Gallipoli in 1914. Nothing any rational person would want to do. Although Tony Blair is already packed to leave No. 10 Downing Street, his heir apparent, Gordon Brown, does not want the prince’s blood on Labour’s hands. Not in this world!

When the Brits leave Iraq, can the Yanks be far behind? Thank you Prince William, for getting done what the voters on November 7 tried to do but could not get done.


[edit on 2/21/2007 by donwhite]