. . . or else he’s just damn smart. See this article wherein he speculates about what would happen in the event of California wildfires--last May. Is he not spot on down to the bit about Dems blaming Bush? He can be forgiven for tooting his own horn on this at The Remedy. When you’re that accurate you should shout it. He’s right, too, that Presidential candidates will have to face an electorate demanding a better understanding of emergency management and the Federal government’s role. In the coming weeks and months there will be time to discuss it more fully. And while it looks like San Diego, especially, is doing a very good job of taking care of itself, disaster preparedness--in general--should be a topic that smart Republicans can take on in a direct way.
A frequent (and legitimate) complaint about the administration’s case for the war was that they didn’t do much to make people feel tied to it--to get us involved in the effort or ask us to sacrifice for it. Disaster preparedness is not exactly the same thing . . . but it’s tied to national security and could be (God forbid) tied to the war effort. And it is something we can all take more responsibility for achieving in our communities. The GOP should be out in front promoting this.
Possibly, but I wouldn't bet on it. There are significant dangers here. One, it's very easy for this to become a Democratic game -- to play into Democratic hands -- because it's easily turned into what G. W. Bush once called "a spending contest." Two, the issue heightens the role and the credibility of public-employee unions in the campaign. By and large, as organizations, public-employee unions are NOT our friends. Even if many of their members are our friends, it's the bosses who count, and the bosses are against us for the most part. Rudy is perhaps especially vulnerable here.
Yes, David. It's much better to run from the issue and just let the Democrats have it on a silver platter. Why can't we play offense for once?
Once again, you are leaping to snide conclusions from slender evidence. You really ought to read more carefully before you trash somebody's comments. I never suggested running from the issue. I suggested that it may not be wise to promote the issue, let alone to expect a political gain from it. I yield to no one in my belief in "playing offense." It's quite true that Republicans don't do enough of this. But government aid and spending, even for this, is rarely a Republican issue. We need to play offense on OUR issues.
You really ought to read more carefully before you trash somebody's comments. Take your own advice David and show me where I said we should be talking about government aid and spending (at least of the federal variety) when we talk about disaster preparedness. But that's exactly what we'll all be talking about if Dems take the lead here.
Nope, you haven't caught me yet. I didn't say that **you said** we should be talking about government aid and spending, federal or other. I only said the Dems will turn it into that kind of discussion.
They certainly will if we don't do something to counter them.
I favor countering them, and believe it can be done semi-effectively. I don't favor using this as an issue, which means heightening public attention to it, and inviting the public to look at it as if we have a big advantage here, which we don't.