Everyone knows that after 9/11, "America's mayor," Rudy Giuliani, was canonized by the American media for his strength and courage in the face of the terrorists that attacked the World Trade Center. We know Giuliani "sounds tough on national security" but let's step back for a minute. He was the mayor of a city, albeit a major city, but does that give him national security credentials? Not really. Yet the conventional wisdom is that since he "hates the terrorists" more and "seems tougher" than those wussy Democrats, the media regularly elevates him above people who have actual foreign policy experience. The thinking goes something like, "if only those socially conservative Republican primary voters could look past the fact that he's pro-choice, he'd be exactly what this country needs in a time of war and would be very attractive in a general election."
I highly recommend this editorial in the LA Times which goes a long way toward debunking the myth that Giuliani would necessarily make a good president. After all, "talking tough" got us into Iraq and has made much of the world hate us. It's not a substitute for good foreign policy. What happened to speaking softly and carrying a big stick?
UPDATE: The Onion published glorious piece last week illustrating my point.
I highly recommend this editorial in the LA Times which goes a long way toward debunking the myth that Giuliani would necessarily make a good president. After all, "talking tough" got us into Iraq and has made much of the world hate us. It's not a substitute for good foreign policy. What happened to speaking softly and carrying a big stick?
UPDATE: The Onion published glorious piece last week illustrating my point.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home