Roger L. Simon: The Presidential Election: A Basic Question

While watching the endless pundit blather on TV tonight after the Republican Michigan Primary and Democratic Nevada Debate and reading the various opinion meisters commentaries online, I had one of those rare zen moments of simplicity. It all comes down to a simple question:

Who would you like to be in the White House if Pakistan fell to al Qaeda and the Islamists gained control of its nuclear arsenal?

Answer that question and you will know your candidate. All the rest, as they say, is commentary.

Comments

Comments require registration through TypeKey. Abusive remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Roger Simon.

So, are you saying the only person who can win this is the person who is honest with themselves on that question?

It would seem to me the candidates could live in denial throughout the campaign. Heck, the Democratic Party has been living in denial since 9/11.

Who would you like to be in the White House if Pakistan fell to al Qaeda and the Islamists gained control of its nuclear arsenal?

"Who would you like to be in the White House if Pakistan fell to al Qaeda and the Islamists gained control of its nuclear arsenal?"

This question is frowned upon by the MSM and its leftist allies. This is why they prefer to switch the topic to the economy or health care benefits. Everyone with half a brain knows that any Republican candidate other than Mike Huckabee or Ron Paul would win in a landslide. The Democrats are dishonest pacifists and existentially incapable of dealing with national defense issues.

Of those in the race today -- who are but a shadow of the great figures of our past -- I'd say (1) Fred! (2) Giuliani; and (3) Romney, in that order. Fred! because he steps on the right toes at the right time. Giuliani because he steps on the right toes impetuously. Romney because he thinks about stepping on the right toes and doesn't usually step on the wrong ones.

Needless to say that Democrats are too busy kissing toes depending on color or gender, McCain can't tell his friends' toes from his enemies', Huckabee is into that whole anointing toes with oil thing, and Kucinich and Paul think that toes arrived on a giant space ark from another galaxy.

it's the terror (stp). all other issues and concerns can and will be postponed. if not because because of political will, because of lack of funding. you name it we know how to put it off.

the persuit of our enemies against us will not, they do not lack the will, nor the funding, nor the followers and most of all not our complaisance.

But seriously, if Sen Clinton wins, she'll nuke Iran to keep her poll numbers up.

Yes, she'll fritter away opportunities that she could have used to avoid being in that situation, but when she's in it, she'll nuke them.

FWIW, I've yet to run into a Clinton supporter who believes otherwise. She'll run until she's cornered, but then she'll go big. They're just hoping that she can run far/fast enough to avoid going nuclear.

Can someone please explain exactly what McCain's qualifications are that should make his stance on immigration, McCain/Feingold, earmarks or his banking scandal back in the day, be ignored?

I keep hearing about his experience and all I come up with is a long time in the go along to get along Senate and Vietnam.

Granted he was a true war hero, but what does that mean with regards to presidential qualifications? He scares me in that I think he has strong tyrannical impulses and a big government mindset.

We never have any idea how a candidate will react to major shifts in the world stage. Pre-9/11 if someone would have said, GWB will tap American phone lines, utilize questionable forms of 'interrogation', invade multiple foreign countries etc etc, most people would have assumed we had giant tinfoil hat on. George Bush the candidate was not George Bush post-911... If we had known the risks at the time of the election, its far more likely that the GOP would have picked someone else because GWB was compassionate, worked with Dems, had little foreign policy or actual military experience.

If I had to elect someone based on how I thought they would handle a crisis with Muslim extremists I think it would be as follows:

No Rudy - Rudy seems like a great guy, he also took 9/11 extremely personally and it shows in a painfully obvious way. He is very emotionally invested inthe War on Terror, for good reason. But, emotion clouds judgement....

No Fred - I haven't seen this guy do a damned thing to separate himself from the other "also rans" of the GOP. At least Ron Paul and Dennis have some specific message, as opposed to the blather of Fred. Cool guy, lame politician.

No Hillary - Well, I think Hill would probably be very agressive against Islamic extremists, however, unlike some people, I think voting based on single issues is stupid. Hillary would probably prosecute a war against extremists well... she would also fuck healthcare, grow the government and half the country would still hate the President.

No Huckabee - Even though he's got Steven Colbert as a running mate, I just don't think he's a good choice... on any level.

This, as far as I can tell leaves me the two isolationist crackpots or John McCain... from that lovely set of options, I think I'll go with Senator McCain.

Hillary! and McCain. Either would comport themselves well in the posted situation.

If you want somebody to turn the middle-east into radioactive glass if they attack us - Tom Tancredo, of course.

If you want somebody to comfort you and stroke your head if they attack us, Rudy Giuliani.

Well, if you put it that way, my answer(s) would be:
1)Giuliani
2)McCain
3)Thompson.

Huckabee has no clue about foreign policy. Ditto Romney, although he's a quick study.
As for the Dems, Obama is frightfully naive about foreign policy, and the CLintons are corrupt.

Well, there is another question: If the economy continues to falter and the entire financial structure of the United States goes into collapse, who do you want sitting in the White House?

Because, this is just as real a possibility and an even more serious threat to the nation's existence.

One thing - we for sure don't want a Democrat sitting there with Reid and Pelosi still in power.

1) Thompson, who I think has the right attitude, provided his Vice President is either:

2) Romney, who has substantial management skills, is a quick study, and is young, or

3) McCain/Guiliani, neither of whom I want as a President (to say the least,) but who have decent "ruthlessness" and generic "war on terror" qualifications.

None of the candidates are great on this issue. I'd be okay with Romney as President and Thompson as VP (I don't think it'll happen: I think a Presidential Nominee Romney would need one of the other guys to fill out his ticket,) for this question: Romney might call in the lawyers, but he'd also get an answer from them quickly. I'm not too impressed with Thompson's managerial skills so far.

I'd have a really hard time voting for him (I can't imagine it at this stage,) but Guiliani as President probably wouldn't completely screw up this question, and probably would take advice from people he recognizes as subject matter experts. I have no faith in the professional maverick (especially after McCain/Feingold,) and I'd vote for Hillary (who I wouldn't vote for, and who would screw up so many other things that I think Pakistan would become a secondary concern) before Huckabee, who in my head is called the "second coming of Carter."

Oh, and assuming that the economy continues on the path it's on now, I'd take a Romney/Guiliani ticket second to Romney/Thompson, followed by Thompson/Romney. Everyone else, in whatever combination, fails.

The is not the important question. Any of the Republican candidates would be far better to have in the White House if this were to occur than would any of the Democrat candidates.

But the Republican candidates are all very different on other things, like domestic issues. Those are the important issues in deciding which Republican to support.

The is not the important question. Any of the Republican candidates would be far better to have in the White House if this were to occur than would any of the Democrat candidates.

But the Republican candidates are all very different on other things, like domestic issues. Those are the important issues in deciding which Republican to support.

The is not the important question. Any of the Republican candidates would be far better to have in the White House if this were to occur than would any of the Democrat candidates.

But the Republican candidates are all very different on other things, like domestic issues. Those are the important issues in deciding which Republican to support.

This is not an important question. Any of the Republican candidates would be far better to have in the White House if this were to occur than would any of the Democrat candidates.

But the Republican candidates are all very different on other things, like domestic issues. Those are the important issues in deciding which Republican to support.

January 15, 2008: The Presidential Election: A Basic Question - Cutting to the Chase

Comments

Post a comment

Email This Post