|
| Tuesday, December 14, 2004 |
| Why Not Rudy? |
With all the talk about Bernard Kerik, it occurred to me this morning that nothing has been said (at least that I've read) about the possibility of Rudy Giuliani being nominated as Sec of Homeland Security. Why is that? After all, it was Rudy that was the "comforting", "on-the-ball" manager in the wake of 9/11, not the guy standing (mostly) silently next to him. And obviously Rudy would have more political skill and be better able to navigate the Washington scene.
So my thought was - has he told GWB that he's gunning for the Prez nomination in 2008? That's the only thing I can think of - otherwise it seems like the perfect job for him. Perhaps he's happy to make money - he recently started an investment bank. But I don't think that's the whole story. I think Rudy really believes it's his job if he wants it. Time will tell.
|
posted by CB @ 8:40 AM   |
|
| 2 Comments: |
-
The problem I see, Jess, is that it would be incredibly irresponsible to run for office while an active Secretary tasked with running the country (ESPECIALLY of Homeland Security), and even more irresponsible for Bush to appoint someone that was planning to leave in 2 years to pursue office.
Giuliani does not need exposure or the limelight. He'd almost be better not having a chance to piss people off. And that position is like a closer in baseball - people only notice when you fail. Bad news for any pres candidate, methinks.
-
I think that clearly the candidates with the most experience in international affairs and covert operations should be put in charge of Homeland security.
PA governors and others in the mainstream are good political appointments. However, an obscure military man or intelligence agent with years of experience and knowledge of terrorist organization seems like they'd have a better chance of putting together a plan to keep America safe. Politicians with a working knowledge of international relations are obviously better than someone who's qualifications are "cracks good jokes about the opposition", but isn't this a position where the government should consider more than polling numbers?
Give me someone who has fought a terrorist or infiltrated the terrorist ranks. Experience. Not in washington or in dealing with the destruction of terrorism, but experience in dealing with the operations of terrorists or knowledge of the planning of terrorist actions. Experience that would give America a chance at prevention.
|
| |
| << Home |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Recent Posts |
|
| Archives |
|
| Contact Me |
| Email me |
| Template by |
 |
|
|
The problem I see, Jess, is that it would be incredibly irresponsible to run for office while an active Secretary tasked with running the country (ESPECIALLY of Homeland Security), and even more irresponsible for Bush to appoint someone that was planning to leave in 2 years to pursue office.
Giuliani does not need exposure or the limelight. He'd almost be better not having a chance to piss people off. And that position is like a closer in baseball - people only notice when you fail. Bad news for any pres candidate, methinks.