Saturday, December 29, 2007

Substance Over Style - My Least Worst Dem

The assassination of Benazir Bhutto reinforces my belief that the next President of the United States cannot be ill equipped to deal with foreign policy decisions. There will probably be a big problem facing the next President in an area of the world Michael Yon has labeled troublestan.

A lot of discussion here at RedState recently about which is the best GOP candidate to be nominated and win the election and deal with this kind of crisis. You have got to demonstrate, at a moment of crisis, you can make a presidential decision in a world where you are given no good alternatives. You have got to seem presidential at a moment like this. And that means you have got to take the tough issue and take a stand.

I don't know why this question crossed my mind, perhaps 1 or 6 too many beers, but what if a Dem is elected? I pray this does not happen, but which one is the least of the worst if it does? Last night, on PBS NewHour David Brooks had this to say
I would say some are handling it well, some very poorly, and not -- you wouldn't predict who was doing one and who was doing the other.

Listen, Pakistan is a challenging problem. How do you deal with Pervez Musharraf? We have got multiple interests. Do we support him? How much do we support him? I count four candidates who have dealt with that difficult issue, whether it be pro-Musharraf, anti-, one way or another, take a position. And those are Biden, Richardson, Thompson, and McCain.

They have all at least addressed this difficult subject. The others have simply sidestepped it. I mean, John Edwards wished to educate Pakistan's children? Give me a break, that's not a policy. Hillary Clinton talks about her expertise. She knew Benazir Bhutto, but what would she do about Musharraf? You have got to answer that question.

You have got to demonstrate, at a moment of crisis, you can make a presidential decision in a world where you are given no good alternatives. And I would say most of the candidates, and most notably Clinton, have punted on that.

David Brooks' observations pointed me in the direction of Bill Richardson as my least worst Dem. I let Google be my friend, again, and I found this recent article in the Baltimore Sun. Here is a snippet that caught my attention
Nearly ten years ago, Al Qaeda first attacked America in East Africa. Months before that attack, I went to Afghanistan to press the Taliban to hand over Osama bin Laden, he said. They refused. So we imposed tough UN sanctions on them, and began building a coalition to keep America safe.

Richardson also said he has offered more detail than his Democratic opponents on what to do in Afghanistan, by calling for five brigades, about 20,000 troops, to be deployed there.

Two brigades should be sent to the border to stop terrorists from infiltrating Afghanistan through the Pakistani border, he said. I would send two brigades to the south to fight a resurgent Taliban there. And one brigade should redeploy to the west to deter any other country from any thoughts of expansionism.

I also discovered that Bill Richardson wrote a piece for Foreign Affairs around the same time that Mike Huckabee wrote his article. Richardson is liberal, but his foreign is organized, and not a mish mash.

Bill Richardson strongly supports the 2nd Amendment right for a citizen to keep and bear arms.

I was recently told by a former dem, (cough gamecock cough), that dems always choose their nominee on style over substance. If that is the case Bill Richardson has 0 chance of getting the nomination because he is getting lower grades on style as a dem candidate, than Fred Thompson is getting as a GOP candidate.

So I choose candidates by substance over style, and based on that and the limited research I have done Bill Richardson is my least worst dem. I did not base my conclusion on who would be the easiest dem candidate for the GOP to defeat. So with that in mind tear me a new one, and let me know which of the dems should be my least worst nightmare.

No comments: