Giuliani's "Twelve Commitments"
Marc Comtois
OK, I suppose it would appear that I've been flakking for Fred Thompson, so, in the spirit of encouraging debate, here are Rudy Giuliani's just-announced "Twelve Commitments" (via Powerline):
Rudy’s Twelve Commitments are based on the principles of giving people more freedom, more power, and more responsibility over their own lives, while protecting our nation, strengthening our economy, and improving the quality of life.
“I believe America solves its problems best from strength, not weakness, and from optimism, not pessimism,” Giuliani said. “My Twelve Commitments are a promise to this generation and generations to come that we will keep the American dream alive. I believe it’s the kind of leadership and common sense accountability the American people need in Washington.”
Mayor Giuliani will travel the country this summer to detail each of his Twelve Commitments.
The Twelve Commitments:
1. I will keep America on offense in the Terrorists’ War on Us.
2. I will end illegal immigration, secure our borders, and identify every non-citizen in our nation.
3. I will restore fiscal discipline and cut wasteful Washington spending.
4. I will cut taxes and reform the tax code.
5. I will impose accountability on Washington.
6. I will lead America towards energy independence.
7. I will give Americans more control over, and access to, healthcare with affordable and portable free-market solutions.
8. I will increase adoptions, decrease abortions, and protect the quality of life for our children.
9. I will reform the legal system and appoint strict constructionist judges.
10. I will ensure that every community in America is prepared for terrorist attacks and natural disasters.
11. I will provide access to a quality education to every child in America by giving real school choice to parents.
12. I will expand America’s involvement in the global economy and strengthen our reputation around the world.
UPDATE:
More elaboration here.
Isn't the real question on each of these, "How?"
Dear Mrh,
You guys might be interested in this:
The Romney people, they are not directly saying it's them but a lot of media members who've received it say so, already have been quietly emailing a response to the "committments". Obviously, I can't get my hand on one but you might be able to.
I don't often laud the other side, but you have to admit that the Romney people have been the most proactive and ahead of the curve group since day 1.
Ah, thanks to the update, I can now see that I disagree with almost everything. Sweet!
Romney has got the money, but he hasn't been able to do anything with it. He still loses in general election head to head's against not only Obama and Clinton, but against second tier Democrats, too. Both Giuliani and McCain fare better.
Thompson's problem is that he is nationally popular, but not highly popular within the early states. It might help him that so many other states have moved their primaries up.
Romney does well in NH, Giuliani does well in FL, McCain does well in SC and Iowa is a toss up. If the existing GOP candidates split the early states and Thompson can place second in 2 or 3 of them, he'll be in a good position when the rest of the nation votes.
It can't be long before Brownback, Tancredo, Cox, Paul, Hunter, Huckabee and Gilmore drop out. None of these guys have raised over $2 million yet.
Guiliani haters, check out Matt Taibbi's piece in the latest Rolling Stone ("Worse Than Bush"). It gets into his consulting and profiteering off 9/11. I'm still waiting for the MSM to delve into that stuff.
Rhody --
I'd expect the MSM to go relatively easy on Rudy on any "scandal stuff" until he wins the nomination. If he starts to crash and burn on his own before that, then they may pile on for fun.
Until then, we'll hear a lot about his "moderate" positions.
I'm convinced that, all other thing being equal, the MSM wants Rudy as the Republican nominee. Once the field is narrowed to Rudy vs. the Dem. nominee, the MSM will go afte him in a big way.
Interesting update, Anthony.
Presumably, they don't poll pres/vice pres combinations. I'd be curious how my dream ticket - Romney/Thompson - would do.
Speaking of combinations, any word on whether Hillary and Barak are talking steps towards a Hillary/Barak ticket?
Dear Susan,
Not bad enough that those two can't win. Now, you want us to lose 49 states with that combination.
"Not bad enough that those two can't win. Now, you want us to lose 49 states with that combination."
Yeah, I agree with Bobby. A Hillary/Barak combination would definitely be a loss for the Dems.
I think we underestimate a Hillary/Barack ticket at our peril. She's got high negatives, and there are undoubtedly a number of people who will turn out just to vote against Barack, but you have to break that down state-by-state.
The question is; will they bring out enough new votes in "battleground states" to give them an electoral victory?
They came up over 3 million votes short against the Idiot Cowboy in a time where people hate him and this war. The people just do not like the Democrat message of "It's America's Fault".
If the Reps field a half decent, likable, reach-across-the-aisle candidate this race is in the bag.
There's an incumbent Republican president with a 19% approval rating and the leading GOP candidates are matching up favorably against Dems in the polls. The approval rating of the Democrat-controlled Congress is even lower.
Things aren't looking that bad for 2008.
Click here for the new Anchor Rising & Ocean State Current page
About Community Crier
About Engaged Citizen
Administrator
Isn't the real question on each of these, "How?"
Posted by: mrh at June 13, 2007 2:39 PMDear Mrh,
You guys might be interested in this:
The Romney people, they are not directly saying it's them but a lot of media members who've received it say so, already have been quietly emailing a response to the "committments". Obviously, I can't get my hand on one but you might be able to.
I don't often laud the other side, but you have to admit that the Romney people have been the most proactive and ahead of the curve group since day 1.
Posted by: Bobby Oliveira at June 13, 2007 3:00 PMAh, thanks to the update, I can now see that I disagree with almost everything. Sweet!
Posted by: mrh at June 13, 2007 3:19 PMRomney has got the money, but he hasn't been able to do anything with it. He still loses in general election head to head's against not only Obama and Clinton, but against second tier Democrats, too. Both Giuliani and McCain fare better.
Thompson's problem is that he is nationally popular, but not highly popular within the early states. It might help him that so many other states have moved their primaries up.
Romney does well in NH, Giuliani does well in FL, McCain does well in SC and Iowa is a toss up. If the existing GOP candidates split the early states and Thompson can place second in 2 or 3 of them, he'll be in a good position when the rest of the nation votes.
It can't be long before Brownback, Tancredo, Cox, Paul, Hunter, Huckabee and Gilmore drop out. None of these guys have raised over $2 million yet.
Posted by: Anthony at June 13, 2007 4:16 PMGuiliani haters, check out Matt Taibbi's piece in the latest Rolling Stone ("Worse Than Bush"). It gets into his consulting and profiteering off 9/11. I'm still waiting for the MSM to delve into that stuff.
Posted by: Rhody at June 13, 2007 7:26 PMRhody --
I'd expect the MSM to go relatively easy on Rudy on any "scandal stuff" until he wins the nomination. If he starts to crash and burn on his own before that, then they may pile on for fun.
Until then, we'll hear a lot about his "moderate" positions.
I'm convinced that, all other thing being equal, the MSM wants Rudy as the Republican nominee. Once the field is narrowed to Rudy vs. the Dem. nominee, the MSM will go afte him in a big way.
Posted by: brassband at June 13, 2007 8:28 PMInteresting update, Anthony.
Presumably, they don't poll pres/vice pres combinations. I'd be curious how my dream ticket - Romney/Thompson - would do.
Speaking of combinations, any word on whether Hillary and Barak are talking steps towards a Hillary/Barak ticket?
Posted by: SusanD at June 13, 2007 9:54 PMDear Susan,
Not bad enough that those two can't win. Now, you want us to lose 49 states with that combination.
Posted by: Bobby Oliveira at June 14, 2007 12:16 AM"Not bad enough that those two can't win. Now, you want us to lose 49 states with that combination."
Yeah, I agree with Bobby. A Hillary/Barak combination would definitely be a loss for the Dems.
Posted by: Greg at June 14, 2007 8:37 AMI think we underestimate a Hillary/Barack ticket at our peril. She's got high negatives, and there are undoubtedly a number of people who will turn out just to vote against Barack, but you have to break that down state-by-state.
The question is; will they bring out enough new votes in "battleground states" to give them an electoral victory?
Posted by: brassband at June 14, 2007 12:11 PMThey came up over 3 million votes short against the Idiot Cowboy in a time where people hate him and this war. The people just do not like the Democrat message of "It's America's Fault".
If the Reps field a half decent, likable, reach-across-the-aisle candidate this race is in the bag.
Posted by: Greg at June 14, 2007 1:03 PMThere's an incumbent Republican president with a 19% approval rating and the leading GOP candidates are matching up favorably against Dems in the polls. The approval rating of the Democrat-controlled Congress is even lower.
Things aren't looking that bad for 2008.
Posted by: Anthony at June 14, 2007 11:10 PM