…

Well, I’ll stick with it and keep asking it until someone relents with a straight answer. Considering such a question rests at the very heart of any hiring process – and that’s what an election is; we’re hiring a President – such a question really needs to be what we’re talking about first, not something to be ignored in favor of everything else.

I hope though that we as republicans haven’t become as shallow in our Presidential choices as the Democrats, but considering no one wants to qualify their candidates executive credentials and accomplishments, it certainly looks like the posters around here may be just as bad, if not much, much worse. At least the Democrats pretend to be citing experience. All I read here is fawning over rhetoric, and shallow and predictable rhetoric at that. It makes me wonder if Republicans have any chance at all.

Then prove you’re thinking, please. A nice, general, negative response, but not to the question posed. So you and Dan and Charlie and anyone who answered after my post I absolutely dare you to answer the question and prove you’re making up your minds according to thoughtful fact and not dull impression:

CITE YOUR PREFERRED CANDIDATES RECORD OF MANIFEST, TANGIBLE ACCOMPLISHMENT IN AN EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP ROLE AND COMPARE THAT RUDY GIULIANI’S RECORD.

Stop running away from reality and just do it, please. If you have your facts together it should be easy, and it’s good practice in defending your choice against the Dems after the proimaries. Or can it be that in terms of accomplishment, your choice has nothing to run on?

Keep your eye on the prize. In politics there are winners and losers. If you don’t back the winner, you have backed the loser. If the thought of either democrap in charge doesn’t cause you to back the Republican (whomever it is), then continue living in the state of utopia, because you won’t like it in the real world. While the President and the Congress can stalemate each other, the courts can and will impact our lives in more ways than you can imagine. The right side of the court is well positioned with Roberts (age 52), Thomas (age 59), Alito (age 57) and Scalia (age 72). The left and “center” are weak with Stevens (age 87), Ginsburg age (74), Souter (age 68), Breyer (age 69) and Kennedy (age 71). Do you want Hillary or Obama choosing who to appoint when the lefties start to leave?

And I really do think that a level of unreality and imagination have taken hold of both parties this year. The Dems believe that junior senators can be trotted out and made to look like experienced world leaders, and conservative faithful think that by sending “messages” like not voting unless a perfect Reaganesque candidate can be made the nominee that somehow one of these Dem junior senators won’t become the most powerful person on the face of the earth.

If Rome could fall, then so can we. And it won;t be because this election’s Republican candidate wasn’t “conservative” enough – it’ll be because there is an apparent growing disconnect between fantasy and reality in many people’s minds, and somehow the reality of what’s going on doesn’t seem to be catching hold.

Speaking of Reality, I wonder if anyone will take it upon themselves to answer the simple question posed:

CITE YOUR PREFERRED CANDIDATES RECORD OF MANIFEST, TANGIBLE ACCOMPLISHMENT IN AN EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP ROLE AND COMPARE THAT RUDY GIULIANI’S RECORD.

But I don;t think anyone will. The comfy, cozy daydream of conservative – and unelectible – perfectionism is like an addicition, and they’re too selfish to break the habit even for their kids and grandkids. They’d rather live in the dream. But I’m still hoping that out of 150,000 page hits a day on this site, just one person will address the qualifications of their candidate as posed in the question. Just one, so some of us can have some hope that at least one person may be thinking.

WHAT HAS YOUR CHOSEN CANDIDATE DONE MANIFESTLY THAT IS A MORE PRODUCTIVE RECORD THAN RUDY’S.

Keep repeating it, marshall. It isn’t too late to try to shake the sawdust out of the heads of all the self-destructive daydream idealists in the Republican party.

fred5676
Mitt, Fred, or Mitt/Fred or Fred/Mitt are the only possible ways to veto Shamnesty ‘09.

Well, that’s nice and dogmatic and mostly negative. I’m assuming that Mitt and Fred are your chosen candidates, baturally. So, keep it straight up, Fred, fill in the following blanks with manifest, tangible executive leadership accomplishments of either candidate which is relevent to the Presidency. If Mitt and Fred are lying to you, you’re left ith absolutely nothing, 5676, and so is everyone else, so you better be damn sure of what they can actually do before you vote for them.

So Fred 5676, you took the trouble to post what you did as you do so often, so post to this:

Name 5 manifest accomplishments of executive leadership, things you can point to, not just “supported this” and “voted for that”. It’s a challenge, Fred 5676, and I dare you. Fill in the blanks:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.