The left was closer to the center in the 80’s. Even in 91 CNN’s coverage of gulf war I was positive. Any future republican president should be prepared for all out (political) war with democrats. If Tony Snow was president they would find things to bash him over other than his speaking ability. True or not, by repeating it enough times it would become an issue. Shermanesque? I don’t get it. Does he hate Atlanta? Shawnee middle name? What.

Buck Turgidson on February 4, 2007 at 3:56 PM

Presumably the reference is to Sherman’s famous line re running for POTUS: if drafted, I will not run; if nominated I will not accept, if elected, I will not serve. Something close to that. Considered the gold standard of unequivocal denial of interest in becoming POTUS.

On the other hand, Snow may have some deep loathing for Atlanta. Having spent far, far too much time at Hartfield, I can empathize….

He’s a journalist, and a throat. Yes…I know other qualifications, sure, but PLEASE PEOPLE…stop grasping at straws.

jman on February 4, 2007 at 1:16 PM

about as much as Barak “here to save the world” Obama has.
Plus he can actually stand up for himself and not have to tell reporters not to pick on me because I have big ears. Poor thing, I got picked on as a child and never grew up to be a man.

It’s a shame that Tony will not run, but he’s a republican so he will not get the hero worship afforded to Hillary, Kerry and their ilk.

Sherman unnecessarily burned the capital of my home state Columbia, SC. Toney Snow unnecessarily defended amnesty. However, I still think a RiceSnow ticket would win.
SouthernGent on February 4, 2007 at 7:25 PM

Sherman was a medicore tacttician and strategist. The greatest Union General of the Civl War (next to Grant) was the Virignian who stayed loyal to the Union – George Henry Thomas.

what experience does snow have in a leadership role? was he a governor? a mayor? anything? I love snow, but let’s be realistic, he is not a leadership type. communicator, yes. leader? no.

What experience did Hillary have or Teddy the Swimmer or John Kerry?

Anyone who actually runs for President is too power hungry to actually be President. We need to have a system where we choose the President from all the great Americans who would never run for the job. Hey you, it’s your turn, you’re going to be President for the next 4 years, and if you do a decent job then it’s yours for another 4 years. Don’t want it? Even more reason it’s yours!

“If drafted, I will not run; if nominated, I will not accept; if elected, I will not serve.”

How about….

“If I promise to control illegal immigration, I will bend over and wait for a “Filthy Sanchez”"

Pleeaaaseeeeee……… Clinton had the Chinese money on him, and he only turned over technology that now threatens the United States with nuclear war {nothing to see here folks, move along} …….

Bush has only opened up the borders which has did threatened our National Soviergnty {still, nothing to see here, don’t mind paying for 20 million illegals, their kids, their schools, their healt care, their housing, their crime, the gangs, the rapes, the child molestations, the billions going back to Mwxico while we foot the bill}….. what have you got, Tony?

Speak well? Yes.

Handle the press? Yes.

Nice guy? I don’t know.

Have no clue on what is really going on…? Why don’t you come down to the border for a week. I know a corner in Tijuana that you need to see……., “oh, sorry, can’t leave Washington”.

You are a piece of human fecal matter…. The borders are still wide open, WE ARE STILL BEING INVADED, WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR…

what experience does snow have in a leadership role? was he a governor? a mayor? anything? I love snow, but let’s be realistic, he is not a leadership type. communicator, yes. leader? no.

lorien1973 on February 4, 2007 at 1:12 PM

With respect, that statement shows an impressive ignorance of history.

An identical statement could have been made about a great many of history’s most revered leaders – starting with the most obvious like Abraham Lincoln.

As for “non-leaders” who were reputedly only communicators, we can look at the rather obvious example of Ronald Reagan – would you like to now argue that he wasn’t a great leader?

Frankly, I can’t think of one leader in human history who I truly admire who had the resume you’re probably suggesting. Most of them appeared when they were needed.

God spare us from yet another town-councilman-district-attorney-lieutenant-governor-state-senator-governor-second-term-governor-third-term-governor-back-to-the-senate-for-another-four-terms-and-now-running-for-president …

By those standards, John Kerry is an ideal candidate.

That’s not a leader. It’s a career politician. And the difference between the two is vast.

Any future republican president should be prepared for all out (political) war with democrats.
Well, then, the most qualified potential candidate would have to be Newt. He’s the only one who has experience facing “all-out political war” with Democrats, while in a position of power over Democrats and Republicans alike. McCain doesn’t go to war with Democrats–he joins them more often than not. Rudy hasn’t because he’s pretty liberal himself in many ways. None of the others have been in a high enough position of power to experience it, or I don’t know enough about their experience to say. But at least Newt has gone a few rounds with them and survived to tell the tale.

aero on February 4, 2007 at 4:07 PM

Right on target! Besides, I believe that Newt’s the only one (character flaws aside) actually intelligent enough to reduce them to mince meat.

Raise the pay to say $50 million per year and you’d get more takers.
Yeah, and it would probably look a lot more like an American Idol audition, too. ;-) More entertaining, for sure…

aero on February 4, 2007 at 3:40 PM

and, just for the sake of argument, a guest spot on “24″ – one episode for each of your four years to the winner.

Oh, okay. I misinterpreted what you meant by “periphery.” You meant the periphery of the establishment, not anyone who’s relatively new or unknown. If so, then we do agree. We’re both frustrated that the system limits us to Establishment guys (and gals), whether old ones or far-fetched ones snatched at in desperation from the edges of the establishment. We are unable, due to the limitations of the modern political system, to truly have any motivated and able American citizen run for high office as the founders intended. And that’s a crying shame given all the talent in this great nation.

One is running and the other has the good sense not to.

As for the people such as Newt, much of what we know about them is what they want us to know about them — they are prepackaged deals.And yes, I have known several people who were not famous, but who I have no doubt have all the necessary requirements for solid leadership in the Congress or the Senate or even the presidency. I think that you’re right in line with the point I was trying to make with your last three sentences. We have stuck ourselves with a system in which our leaders are elected based on 1 or more of three things — how long you’ve been in the system, who you know, and how much money do you have. Under such a system, Abraham Lincoln could not today run for hometown mayor, much less be elected.

In a nutshell, this will only change with viable third and fourth parties and viable independent candidates. And that, will come from people among us born of a loud enough,and fed up enough, grassroots movement. What we see here on sites such as Hot Air, and other Internet sites, and the people like us who use them and comment on them, learning to use them to effect change. A good example is all the topics recently on the bad deeds of the mainstream media. The seeds of a very effective counterbalance to the MSM are in place here; we just need to learn how to use them.Eventually,we’ll see that the seeds for a viable grassroots political movement were here all along.

Any future republican president should be prepared for all out (political) war with democrats.

Well, then, the most qualified potential candidate would have to be Newt. He’s the only one who has experience facing “all-out political war” with Democrats, while in a position of power over Democrats and Republicans alike. McCain doesn’t go to war with Democrats–he joins them more often than not. Rudy hasn’t because he’s pretty liberal himself in many ways. None of the others have been in a high enough position of power to experience it, or I don’t know enough about their experience to say. But at least Newt has gone a few rounds with them and survived to tell the tale.

The people who in fact might be truly great leaders won’t bother with the political process in this country , so we’re stuck in recycling the same old names like Newt, or grabbing names like Tony Snow from the periphery.

By definition, these “truly great leaders” that you mention would be on the periphery as well because, as you yourself defined them, they are people who “won’t bother with the political process.” That means they’re off our radar, yes? At least Newt is a known quantity–we know his beliefs, we know his leadership ability, we know he’s connected, we know he’s genuinely conservative. How is the fact that he’s and “old name” make him undesirable?

What you seem to be saying is that new names (those from the periphery, as you put it) are bad. And old “recycled” names are bad, too. So, who are these “truly great leaders” you’d like to see enter the fray? The guy down the street from me might be potentially the best leader the world has ever seen, but no-one would take him seriously because they’ve never heard of him before. He’d never get a shot in our political system.

Don’t get me wrong–I’m also frustrated that we can’t seem to get that perfect candidate to jump in, when we are the third most populous country in the world and have so much greatness to draw from.

Raise the pay to say $50 million per year and you’d get more takers.

Yeah, and it would probably look a lot more like an American Idol audition, too. ;-) More entertaining, for sure…