(Image by Sadly, No!’s Gavin)
Josh Marshall takes a look at Rudy Giuliani’s “Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse” in today’s video update. Says Marshall:
Maybe you love Rudy or maybe you hate him. But whatever you may think of him, check out his foreign policy team, because that’s the key to knowing what to expect from a Rudy presidency. Especially for candidates with little or no foreign policy experience of their own, the folks advising the candidate are key. And Rudy’s team is made up, more or less, of all the guys who were too nuts or too extreme to make the cut with George W. Bush. If you really, really want to go to war with Iran as soon as possible, vote Rudy.
Giuliani’s foreign policy advisers, like Mitt Romney’s “Jihad” ad, are meant to achieve the same objective: pandering to the party base by, really, overcompensating for their lack of conservative bona fides and moderate records. The results are candidates parading around like cartoon characters based caricatures of what’s left of the GOP.
10 Responses to “Rudy’s Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse”
Thanks for a substantive comment matt, that actually addresses the four men discussed in that video.
I appreciate your detailed, and highly researched opinion.
Toodles!
noah, the fact that democrats are pathetic enough to compare policy advisors to the harbingers of armegeddon and the end od days does not deserve a response.
it does deserve to pointed out as yet another example of the utter fear liberals have that their weak willed, embarassingly inexperienced candidates will be crushed in 2008 by america’s mayor.
matt, the Democrats aren’t the ones bringing up the end times. Folks like Nodhoretz have said that we’re currently in World War IV. These folks are the real doom and gloomers, not the Democrats.
And you say, “liberals [will] have… their weak willed, embarassingly inexperienced candidates…crushed in 2008 by america’s mayor.”
Rudy is so strong now that he will beat all of our candidates at once, eh?
I’m sure matt thinks Rudy is more experienced than Bill Richardson too!
Bill Richardson never ran a state did he matt?
I am a Republican and I do like Giuliani, I think he had a signifigant hand in keeping morale high in NY after the 9/11 attacks. Do I think that makes him an ideal candidate for the presidency? Hell no. His Foreign Policy party is a clear example of why he shouldn’t be our president. Throughout history, the presidency rocks back and forth from Rep. to Demo. and back, and it works. We’ve had our years of offense, now it’s time to focus that energy back home, making America the golden country it should be and not the bully the world perceives us as. This goal in not something that should be entrusted to the hands of Giuliani and his minions.
As far as Matt’s comments are concerned… Dude, right now you are acting like the Republican poster boy. Screaming anti-Democrat comments that are poorly written and painfully under researched is not what we need right now. It’s time for the best President possible, and Giuliani isn’t it.
bill richardson did run a state, but still pales in comparison to giuliani running the world’s most important city. remember noah, new mexico has a population of 1.9 million while new york city has a population of 8.5 million.
new mexico’s entire state product equals 57 billion, while new york’s gross city product is estimated around 457 billion. thanks for pointing out the gross disparity in rudy’s ability to run a huge, complex bureaucracy compared to the embarassingly tiny goverment your most qualified candidate ran hahaha.
clayton, listen ‘dude’, please point out what is incorrect in any post, instead of just babbling on and on about golden cities and what not. the best candidate possible is the person who has been proven capable of running a complex government successfully, improving the economy, and improving the lives of his citizens. the only candidate who we know can accomplish this in these difficult times is rudolph giuliani.
as for the cyclical nature of the presidency goes, thats exactly what we need to change. giuliani would dramatically change both parties. the democrats, seeing the clintons defeated, would usher the last remaining DLC democrats out of the party (ala lieberman), and hand full control of the party to the more liberal ‘Dean” wing. the republicans would see the religious(and often hypocritical) right marginalized as the party becomes more moderate and inclusive. this would bring us to a point politically where we can abaddon wedge issues like gay marriage ammendments and focus purely on issues with pratical solutions.
rudy is the real change candidate, if hillary wins, its business as usual, following the identical script of her husband’s administration that led to an eventual religious republican revolution, which is exactly what we don’t need.
as for josh marshall, he sounds almost exactly like all the moonbats who said reagan would start a war with the soviet union, because reagan had stock piled neo-conservative advisors and had begun a massive military build up.
in reality, reagan was taking the necessary steps to put america in a position of strength during negotiations with the soviets. flash forward to today, the same moonbats are saying rudy will march off to war with iran because of his advisors and his ideas to increase the size of our military, and again 27 years later, they are still wrong. iran, like the soviets, must believe america is willing to take action if we are to negotiate from a position of strength. with naive liberals like obama promising to meet without preconditons and to take all weapons and military action off the table, we have zero leverage in getting iran to stop its nuclear program. basically, we are supposed to believe barrack will walk in the room, smile a few times, and iran will buckle under barrack’s awesomeness. don’t hold your breath kiddies. history is again repeating itself, as rudy is setting the table for negotiations with iran from a increasingly strong position, while liberals are headed more toward the jimmy carter ‘let iran fall to the jihadists’ approach that failed all those years ago.
funny how marshall didn’t mention hillary, who has almost the identical position on iran that rudy does, and voted to classify iran’s military as a terrorist group. is that dumber than a rock too joshy???
I’d like to know who HILLARY’s advisers are going to be. If there are any AIPAC Zionists among them, then the chances are just as good that we will be at war with Iran, in order to spare Israel “having to do it.”
With 70% of the American electorate sick and tired of Bush’s bankrupting military adventurism, Ron Paul, being the only anti-war Republican candidate, is the only one who can win against Hillary. And if she already has said that she does not expect to be able to end the war on Iraq before 2013, it would be naive to hope that she would not eventually end up getting us into a conflict with Iran.
Anyone who is serious about disentangling America from its disastrous meddling in the Middle East, had damn well better get themselves onto the Ron Paul bandwagon right now. There is no other way.
Something to say?
for a party that seems so sure of itself, so certain it has the 08 election in the bag, they sure are afraid of giuliani. every liberal blog leads daily with giuliani attacks, shuttering with fear at the fact that in a year that would traditionaly favor democrats they are running very weak top tier candidates against the greatest big city mayor in u.s. history and a bonified american hero. basically, if dems lose this election, they will never again win the presidency, and will hillary leading the way, thats a very real possibility.
Left by matt
October 16, 2007 at 5:04pm