Whither the Republicans?

In the heat of last year’s primary elections I ventured my opinion that Hillary Clinton’s campaign was doomed to fail because it was operating on a false premise: They believed that winning what they called “the core constituency” of the Democratic party was enough to win the nomination.

The premise was false because they didn’t understand their definition of “core constituency” was obsolete.

I referred to Danny DeVito’s famous lines in the play “Other People’s Money” to describe the problem:

“It's too late for prayers. For even if the prayers were answered and a miracle occurred, … we would still be dead. You know why? …

Keep getting an increasing share of a shrinking market.

Down the tubes. Slow but sure.

I offered this opinion after the Pennsylvania primary, where the total vote for Clinton turned out to be less than half what they had counted on; either the “white, working class, non-college-educated” voter was not a certain voter for Hillary or the proportion of such voters had shrunk — perhaps both.

I called it “the toilet bowl effect”: When a toilet is flushed, a huge volume of water descends into the bowl and then whirls in an ever-shrinking vortex until it’s gone.
So why drag all this up again? Because those who fail to learn from the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them?

Recent events in and around the Republican party reached a crescendo with the decision by Senator Arlen Specter, of Pennsylvania (there’s an interesting coincidence!) to give up on the party and join the Democrats.

It had become clear, after a huge number of Pennsylvania Republicans moved to the Democratic party in 2008, that the folks who were left were not a constituency likely to re-elect him in the 2010 Republican primary; a moderate Republican by history, it appeared his chances were better running as a Democrat in the general election.

The reaction in the Republican leadership was mixed, ranging from "sorry to see him go" to “good riddance,” with a heavy tilt toward the latter. Michael Steele, the Republican party chairman, referenced Specter’s “left-wing voting record,” an interesting new definition for “moderate.”

There’s a patchwork of hue and cry from assorted people who profess to care about the future of the Republican party who yearn for the party to rise again, to offer leadership and become a force again. Sad to say, the major players, at least so far, seem determined to pursue an increasing share of a shrinking market.

A good first step would be to dump the word “conservative,” because no one seems to know exactly what it means anymore. Awhile back, it was “low taxes, efficient government, strong national security.” But what does it mean now?

As it is, the lack of any other coherent message on the part of the Republican leadership leaves them defaulting to simply opposing anything the Democratic administration wants to do. With nothing to offer but anger, the party is doomed to keep on shrinking.

There are folks for whom positions on abortion, or gay rights, or school prayer may be a critical part of being “conservative”; but what do they do – refuse to join with anyone who disagrees with them? What if, like Pat Buchanan, they disagree with the war in Iraq but agree on those “social” issues?

What if, like Ron Paul, they disagree on the social issues and on the war in Iraq but believe in low taxes, efficient government and a strong national security”?

What if, like Arlen Specter, they agree on some issues and disagree on others but want to identify with the basic tenets of the Republican party? Drum them out of the roll call?

“Conservative” just doesn’t seem to tell us anything anymore.

Maybe going back to just plain “Republican” will do nicely, but it needs a new sense of purpose. A fractured party is almost no party at all.

Whatever your political leaning, you should want a healthy Republican party. No matter how well our president is doing, no matter how noble the intentions of his administration, a robust and coherent Republican party will always keep them on their toes.

Can’t let sleeping dogs lie

Comments by readers of the online version of my column generally run the gamut from praise to potshots; if it were otherwise I’d wonder if anyone out there was paying attention.

For the record, I don’t usually comment on readers’ comments, but when serious misinformation is put forth, I can’t just leave it hanging out there. This is important stuff for voters to know, even if it seems like nitpicking. Especially if they are wondering about the current Republican effort to pass a law requiring further and redundant identification at the polling place.

Specifically, a couple of readers have insisted that our present law does not require a voter to present a voter registration certificate or in fact any ID at all, in order to vote, each separately recounting experiences where merely giving name and address was all they had needed to do when they voted.

If that were the case, which I respectfully doubt, then the Election Judge at their polling place would have erred, for our Election Code Section 63.001(b) states that:
“On offering to vote, a voter must present the voter's voter registration certificate to an election officer at the polling place.” And there’s a whole litany of procedures that the Election Judge must follow after that.

If, as can happen, you’ve forgotten or lost your registration certificate, you may still be able to vote under Section 63.008:

(a) A voter who does not present a voter registration certificate when offering to vote, but whose name is on the list of registered voters for the precinct in which the voter is offering to vote, shall be accepted for voting if the voter executes an affidavit stating that the voter does not have the voter's voter registration certificate in the voter's possession at the polling place at the time of offering to vote and the voter presents proof of identification in a form described by Section 63.0101.

How do you read that? Clearly, simply stating your name and address won’t cut it.

Section 63.0101 lists the acceptable forms of identification that will allow you to vote provided you complete the affidavit; the list includes driver’s license or other photo ID, birth certificate, or even a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, “or other government document that shows the name and address of the voter.”

A third reader agreed with the others, saying, “I see absolutely no problem with requiring ID for voting.”

Well, fine. But here’s the truth: We already require an ID for voting. It’s called a voter registration certificate, and if you don’t have it with you, see above.

Now, stop a minute and think: In order to get a voter registration certificate, you have to . . . wait for it . . . produce your ID!

According to Elections Code, Section 13.002(c)(8)(A), in order to register to vote your application must include:

(A) the applicant's Texas driver's license number or the number of a personal identification card issued by the Department of Public Safety or a statement by the applicant that the applicant has not been issued a driver's license or personal identification card; or
(B) if the applicant has not been issued a number described by Paragraph (A), the last four digits of the applicant's social security number or a statement by the applicant that the applicant has not been issued a social security number.

Lots of hassle to go through if you want to cheat, and it doesn’t look like there would be many folks left to commit voting-without-ID.

Somewhere in all the comments one gentleman assured me that this was all moot because “Texas law requires people to carry identification on their person.” Well, that sent up shivers of déjà-vu for the libertarian in me, back to the whole national debate about the idea of a national identity card – you know, like all those bad communist governments out there.

So I did what any red-blooded American would do: I called the cops.

Speaking to one of Waxahachie’s finest, I put it to him directly: Does Texas law really require a person to carry identification? His answer:

“No, ma’am.”

He went on to explain that if you are driving a motor vehicle, you must have a driver’s license with you; if you are packing a pistol, you’d better be licensed for that. And the same goes for any other activity for which a license is required: If you need a license for what you’re doing, be prepared to show it.

But you won’t break the law just being out and about, walking the dog, or even walking to the polling place, because America is still the land of the free.

I know this has been an awful lot of detail without much comic relief, especially if the nuts and bolts of our democracy don’t fascinate you as they do me, but if you’ve gotten this far in reading perhaps that means you’ve found it useful.

Here’s to the nuts, and bolts!

Originally published in the Waxahachie Daily Light on March 30, 2009

Republican governors on the stimulus

Three of our nation’s most interesting governors happen to be Republican, and were among the most prominent of that party to speak out over the weekend on the controversy du jour – to wit, whether the president’s stimulus bill is likely to help rescue our economy.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, laden with the curse of the old Proposition 13 legislation that gutted the California economy so many years ago, had just won a significant victory in the matter of his own state’s budget. Gutsy California legislators had managed a compromise that included some tax increases and some spending cuts, driving away the prospect of California’s imminent demise.

The good governor said that he believes President Obama “needs team players,” and that any money the other governors wanted to turn down, well, he’d be happy to accept it for his state.

Schwarzenegger, unlike some, is not rumored to be thinking about running for President in 2012 because, simply stated, he can’t, because he's not a natural-born citizen. Much to the regret of Sen. Orrin Hatch and perhaps even Mr. Schwarzenegger himself. The Republicans' most obvious ticket out of oblivion is out of reach.

Rumored to be very much in reach, on the other hand, is Gov. Bobby Jindal, wunderkind of Louisiana, who has made very strong statements against the stimulus. I’d call them “trophy statements,” for, as New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin suggested, it seems likely that the governor is choosing his words very deliberately because he is an up-and-coming possibility for the Republican nomination in 2012 and wants to keep the base happy.

Jindal said he will not accept any funds designated to extend unemployment benefits; he explained that “I represent the taxpayers of Louisiana.” Of course, the Louisiana legislature can override his refusal, which he knows, so if and when the funds ultimately come to the aid of his unemployed citizens he won’t have too much to account for.

Gov. Charlie Crist of Florida, on the other hand, actually met with President Obama when the president arrived to promote his stimulus plan. Not only did Crist make it clear that he expected the plan to help Florida, he made it clear why: Tens of thousands of jobs and funds for local and state transportation projects.

Crist had an outlook somewhat different from Jindal’s: “I represent the people of Florida,” he said, making it clear that this includes the poor.

On cable TV a stockmarket guru named Rick Santelli delivered a rant (why do so many of these money guys shout?) in which he proclaimed that the president’s plan for the mortgage crisis would only help people who had bought more house than they could afford.

“It’s not fair!” he shouted, that taxpayers should be asked to help a neighbor who had “an extra bathroom.” (I’m not kidding; you can google it.)

Well, this is a road we’ve been down before.

America has the commitment to fairness in its DNA. We care. The exception may prove the rule, as shown by Jack Kennedy's remark, in a context long forgotten by me, that “life’s not fair.”

But “fair” has nothing to do with how we handle a national crisis, because the other essential quality in our national DNA is “fix it!”

If your neighbor’s house is aflame and you are called upon to help, as I’ve said before, it’s obviously in your interest to bring your water hose to try to put out the fire. And now I add this: Do you really want to stand there calculating the cost of your water bill before you turn on your hose?

The repeated claims by opponents of the administration that it’s all about helping people who should “never have bought houses they couldn’t afford” are unsustainable.
People who are losing or about to lose their homes include hard-working folks who have lost their jobs; just a couple of months out of work can mean getting behind on the mortgage payment. There are people hit with huge medical bills that cause them to fall behind.

Many of the people who are losing their homes are veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, who came home to find there were no jobs available, or who came home disabled and unable to work. What about them?

And there are people who believed, when they bought a home when times were good, that they’d be able to refinance in a few years because the home’s value would increase, not to worry, no problem, and they believed the lender who sold them that bill of goods.

After all, you want to believe your lender, who is the only expert available. And who was there to tell you that everything was going to come crashing down?

There is another strand of American DNA: Charity. Taking care of one’s neighbor. We always stand together in a crisis.

We are proud of the way we stood together after 9/11. In every community in America people come together to help families who have experienced tragedy, to assist a dying child, to salute a fallen hero.

Let’s not be talked down by the cynics; let’s keep on doing the American thing.

Unleash the dogs!

Back in the sixties, a political friend of mine – Irish-American Chicago politics background – told me that whenever you hear a politician worry in public about something happening, you can be certain that he is working his very heart out behind the scenes to make it happen.

Which brings me to Dick Cheney.

“Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?” The question asked by England’s Henry II about Thomas a Becket almost a millennium ago comes to mind unbidden but irresistibly.

In case you missed it, Cheney gave an interview to Politico in which he said, essentially, that if the Obama administration didn’t conduct matters of security exactly the same way as Bush had, we would be struck again on our homeland by terrorists. He offered chemical, biological and/or nuclear attacks as possibilities.

What on earth could be the purpose in trying to scare us to death again? It’s a rhetorical tactic left over from the campaign of 2004, but why? Dick Cheney and his ideas were disavowed by his own party way before the recent election made it clear that it’s time to move on.

Who knows? Maybe he just wants to be loved.

For the good of the country, it’s time for Cheney to follow the example of his old boss and go quietly into that good night. Head back to the ranch in Wyoming, or Texas. Wherever.

With friends like him, the American people don’t need enemies.
* * *
In other developments, I am so furious with Tom Daschle that I can hardly see straight. How dared he be so cavalier as to think the errors of his judgment would be overlooked? And what on earth are accountants for, anyway?

His failure to act honorably helped deliver a humiliating blow to the Obama administration.

He knew last June that the unpaid tax matter could be a problem, and yes, there might be perfectly acceptable explanations for his situation. But he KNEW it was there when he was vetted by the Obama people and he didn’t tell them until last month.

Tom Daschle has been around long enough to know that unpaid taxes can be a problem for any potential cabinet member – heaven knows, we’ve seen enough go down in flames in the past. What was he thinking?

Add to that the extraordinary amount of income – almost $5 million -- he had received as a consultant since he left the Senate. “Consulting” is a more discreet form of lobbying than Jack Abramoff and friends practiced. It’s legal, but it raises questions and, to make matters worse, he received some of those consulting fees from companies in the medical community.

The dogs of war were let loose: Not just the usual puppies, like John Cornyn (R-TX) and John Ensign (R-NV), but then the pitbull Grover Norquist, the anti-tax guy, emerged from whatever kennel he has been hiding in since he and Abramoff fell out of favor a couple of years back.

(Norquist was a big player in the White House during the Republican years; most famously, he has said he wants to reduce taxes in order to shrink government to a size small enough to flush down the bathtub drain. D’you think he’d get rid of the White House, too?)

So here they were, yapping and snarling again – just like the good old days. As if they never had a scandal in the world . . .

Not only did Daschle embarrass the administration and Obama personally, but in the matter of choosing a Secretary of Health and Human Services he consumed precious time and perhaps even damaged the chances of success for health care reform.

Thanks, Tom.
* * *
Finally, while we’re talking about such things, remember the old adage mentioned here before: the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.

Along those lines, President Obama’s repeated efforts to work with the Republicans in Congress — traveling up to the Capitol to meet with the Republican caucus, meeting with individual Republican leaders, inviting them for cocktails at the White House, or to watch the Super Bowl game; yielding on one point after another in the stimulus package only to have them reject it again and again — all came to naught.

Toward the end of last week, though, he proved he hasn’t lost his mind. Describing the Republican opposition, he said, “Then you get the argument, well, this is not a stimulus bill, this is a spending bill. What do you think a stimulus is? That’s the whole point. No, seriously. That’s the point!”

So here we are, after years of Republican tax cuts that helped get us into this mess, with the Republican leadership in both houses now insisting that only tax cuts will get us out of it. They have claimed they want bipartisanship in Washington, and yet to date only three Republicans — none in the House, all in the Senate — are willing to support the legislation that even most of them acknowledge will provide jobs and tax relief to the American people and small businesses.

Another bit of psychology comes to mind: How many psychiatrists does it take to change a light bulb? Only one, but the light bulb has to really want to change.

Some things I just don’t get

Reasonable people can disagree, that’s a popular given. The operative word, of course, is “reasonable.”

But some of the most passionate arguments in our world today have less to do with reason than with conflicting religious beliefs – that, I get. Others are territorial but also understandable; even when the observer thinks resolution is obvious it may not be so to those who are passionately engaged. Forest, trees, that sort of thing.

The more complicated quarrels involve both religion and territory, like the array of struggles throughout the Middle East, not to mention between India and Pakistan, China and Tibet, and in Ireland, just to name a few.

I get those.

And I get petty theft, tax cheating, failure to pay parking tickets, and all the other small-time stuff that is part of life.

But I don’t get Rod Blagojevich, now former governor of Illinois, who became so by impeachment. Here is a guy that everyone agrees is a pretty smart fellow, who became stupid after he was elected and turned corruption into a circus.

Why would he do that? Did his reason become disengaged along the way?

I just don’t get corruption; it doesn’t make sense.

And how about Bernie Madoff, who carried off what may have been the greatest swindle in financial history. Now he’s locked up in his penthouse without any apparent remorse about the havoc he has wreaked. I get wanting to be fabulously wealthy, but if you're that smart, why not get rich the old-fashioned way?

But I still don’t get rich folks so desperately wanting more.

Meanwhile, back in Congress, we have the matter of the President’s proposed stimulus legislation being held up by a smattering of obdurate Republicans who survived the November 4th decision by a majority of Americans to turn the business of governing our country over to the Democrats.

Remarkably, Rep. Darrell Issa asserted, in a recent interview, that his constituents in Southern California wanted to “return to Republican values.” Maybe so, but there weren’t enough of them to make that happen. That’s democracy for you.

I don’t get the Republicans this time around, though I have in the past. I heard one Congressman say that the best plan for resolving the crisis we face is “the Bush system.” I would suggest that has been tried, but doesn’t seem to have worked.

What is that definition of insanity? To keep doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result?

Do the Republicans, like Rush Limbaugh, want the President to fail? What does that say about what they want for our country?

Alternatively, do they really think they have a better plan? Tax cuts? Who has any income left to tax, anyway?

Seems to me the best plan for the Republicans would be to go along with the Administration’s plan, for if it fails, it fails, and they can blame it on Obama anyway. But if it succeeds they would get a huge part of the credit.

As it stands, they are taking a terrific chance, for if it succeeds without them, then Obama and his people will get all the credit and the Democrats will be stronger than ever.

By the way, I don’t get the Republican claim that putting money into the hands of the taxpayers would not stimulate the economy.

Granted, some folks are now living so close to the edge that it's likely the money would simply go for food, rent and utility bills. But others may spend the money to replace a broken washing machine (with a new one purchased from a dealer who will need to order another from the manufacturer, whose employees will be happy to keep doing their jobs) or for car repairs (making it possible to continue looking for work, not to mention providing work for a mechanic who use what he earns to buy new shoes for his kids) or for a babysitter (making it possible to take the job offer while providing the sitter with money to spend).

I’d call that a stimulus, wouldn’t you?

This is not a matter of reasonable people disagreeing. Republican steam about the proposed stimulus package simply is not reasonable. They have everything to gain by supporting the plan, from good will to future votes – not to mention a shot at fixing our broken economy. I don’t see what they have to lose.

I suspect, as they probably do, that the bill will be passed with or without them because of the urgency of the times.

So c’mon, guys. Enough with the posturing. Time’s a-wastin’!

John’s choice

With the choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate, John McCain did one thing for sure: he injected new life and perhaps a wee bit of hope into a Republican convention that was struggling to attract America’s attention.

To the wider audience not distracted by funny hats and backdrop films of cornfields and LA middle schools, the snarky comments about Barack Obama had become repetitious and there was even growing suspicion among some that McCain’s only real qualification to be President of the United States seemed to be his five-plus years of experience as a prisoner-of-war subjected to torture.

The “maverick” image of 2000 had pretty well faded as, one by one, McCain took on the attitudes of his former nemesis: tax cuts for billionaires, about which he said in 2003, "I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who need tax relief," in 2006 became his new favorite proposal.

Speaking of torture, John McCain famously (and deservedly) supported legislation that would have banned waterboarding and some other forms of torture. But last February, when the bill came to a vote (with Mr. Bush promising to veto it), he voted against it.

The man who, more than many, symbolizes the wounded veteran, has consistently opposed increasing veterans’ benefits, including health care for wounded warriors and educational rewards for serving the country.

McCain’s proposals to address the health care crisis (yes, Virginia, there is one) include offering a $5,000 tax credit to help Americans buy insurance, which makes one wonder about folks who don’t make enough to pay enough taxes to cover that, and (incredibly) taxing as income the value of employer-provided insurance.

The man famous for opposing earmarks in legislation chose a running mate who, as mayor of her town, managed to obtain more earmark money for her constituents than any other town in the country. And the multimillion-dollar allocation earmarked for a “bridge to nowhere,” that Palin wants us to believe she rejected, were actually paid to Alaska — just not for that bridge.

Republicans at the convention seem to have bought into the assertion that a great many of Hillary Clinton’s supporters will abandon all their principles (sort of the way McCain did) and vote for him just to have Sarah Palin “a heartbeat from the presidency.”

The people who voted for Hillary Clinton because of what she said and stood for will choose to vote for Mrs. Palin just because she’s a woman?

It’s called cognitive dissonance, folks.

Does anyone actually stop to think what “one heartbeat away” means? And if and when they do, do they pause at least a moment to imagine the possibility that — like any of us — John McCain, being mortal, could expire on election day, for example, and then what?

We have an economy on the rocks, health care costs about to explode, schools failing, college costs headed for the stratosphere, jobs being lost (the latest unemployment number was 6.1%, the highest in five years); we have global warming (which Palin doesn’t believe in); we have war winding down in Iraq, another heating up in Afghanistan, a developing crisis in Pakistan, the threat of trouble with Iran, unknown challenges in the former Soviet bloc, and the ever-present Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

And John McCain offers us eye-candy with attitude?

We learned over the weekend that the McCain campaign has told the media that Palin will not be available for interviews (read: questions) anytime soon. In fact, according to campaign manager Rick Davis, Palin won't give any interviews “until we think it’s time and she feels comfortable doing it." And, according to a report on Talking Points Memo, he later added that she wouldn't give any interviews "until the point in time when she'll be treated with respect and deference."

In the meantime, all you folks who are still deciding who to vote for this November can just accept the McCain campaign’s word for it: She is, like, TOTALLY ready to order our sons and daughters into battle.


Originally published September 7, 2008

Farewell to the Pharisees

It seems to have been proven once again: Money can’t buy you the presidency of the United States of America.

Mitt Romney should’ve learned from Steve Forbes, who spent some $38 million of his own money in each of his two attempts to become president back in 1996 and 2000.

By the time Romney suspended his campaign last week he had spent, according to the folks who do the numbers, approximately $1.16 million — including $35 million or so of his own money — for each of the 286 delegates he won.

Our boy Huckabee, on the other hand, ambling somewhat jovially and much less frenetically along the same campaign trail, has collected some 20 delegates for each $1 million spent so far and 180 or so delegates on board. Imagine if he had even a fraction of Romney’s money!

I find no report of Huckabee putting any of his own money into the mix, and in fact, according to the Washington Post, he continues his pre-campaign career of paid speaking engagements, explaining that “If I don’t work, I don’t eat.”

If I thought there was any likelihood at all that Mr. Huckabee could win the White House, I might be writing to sound the alarm instead of just enjoying the show, if for no other reason than his stated wish to abolish the IRS and add a hefty sales tax to what we buy.

(You think 8.25% is a tough tax to pay? Try thinking about 30%! On every dollar you spend!)

But it’s refreshing to watch Huckabee’s campaign just for the sheer decency and authenticity of it. And his sense of humor really lights up an interview.

Of course, despite his credentials as a Baptist minister and his position on matters they claim to hold dear, the folks I call the Radical Right aren’t having any of it. I have no idea why, other than Huckabee’s unarguably Christian desire to help the poor and worry about middle class jobs.

Even more so, the RR doesn’t care for John McCain. The very conservative senator from Arizona apparently isn’t conservative enough for the likes of Laura Ingraham, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, despite a long conservative record.

These worthies are so opposed to McCain they have vowed to support Hillary Clinton should he become the Republican nominee.

But this brings to mind the old saw about the dog chasing a car: What would he do if he ever caught it?

What do you suppose would happen if they actually “won” the election? Would they be able to influence events at the White House? Or would they just be out of work?

Imagine, if you will, American society without the Limbaughs and Ingrahams and Coulters, whose stock in trade is hateful speech! Ahhh!

Seriously, it seems obvious to me that the Radical Right has hijacked the concern about social issues that for a long time defined the mostly evangelical portion of the Republican base, in order to promote their own decidedly uncharitable agenda.

They want to cut taxes for the rich. They don’t want campaign finance reform, preferring that rich folks and corporations be allowed to donate unlimited money to campaigns. (They might want to rethink this; see above).

They don’t want any path to citizenship to solve the problem of what to do with 12 million people who came here illegally, no matter how many years ago or how heavy the penalty proposed. They don’t want universal health care. They don’t want to clean up the environment.

Their list is long, but you’ll notice one common denominator: Money.

This election offers the Republican Party an opportunity, whether John McCain or Mike Huckabee is the nominee, to purge itself of the radical element. By winning the nomination in spite of everything those folks have thrown at him, McCain may succeed in marginalizing them; if Huckabee were to amaze everyone and win the nomination, I think the radicals would go the way of the Pharisees:

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you devour widows' houses, and pray at length as a pretense.

Sauce for the Gander

Last week in this space I wrote about the importance of paying close attention to each candidate as the primary season moves along, because what you see can be a really good indicator of what you would get.

On the other hand, especially in politics it seems, what you see or hear may cleverly mask reality, usually because the reality might also be called the unpleasant truth.
The “Healthy Forests Initiative” comes to mind, designed as it was to expand private logging access to old-growth trees in federal forests.

Since my comments last week on the upcoming primary election focused on the putative front-runner in the Democratic race, it seems only fair to now talk about the man the pundits tell us is the Republican front-runner.

And in this case what you see is most definitely not what you get.

I have to admire, in a way, a person whose aura is so strong as to overcome everything and everyone in the room, including an elephant or two (no pun intended).

Imagine yourself at an elegant dinner in a five-star restaurant; the entree has just been set before you, the hundred-dollar bottle of cabernet has proven to be worth every penny, and a guy at the next table lights up a cheap cigar.

When word began to buzz that Rudy Giuliani was thinking about running for President, the pundits all predicted that he would never be accepted in polite society, so to speak, because of his quite liberal views, and that there was no way he could win the nomination of the Republican party.

So here we are, surrounded by the aura of strength, with a candidate who is not what he seems, and not what the country needs.

On the assumption that most non-New Yorkers don’t really know Rudy (funny, isn’t it, how both front-runners have first-name identity), I’d like to offer a short profile here. (This is where I ‘fess up to part of my roots, the formative years spent in New York, whose vestiges have remained; even though I have now lived in Waxahachie twice as long as anywhere else, formative is formative and I have never stopped paying attention to events in the Big Apple.)

Rudy Giuliani’s tenure as mayor of New York was fraught with controversy and cronyism.

There have been terrible decisions, reckless behavior, outright lies, and disastrous judgment in public appointments. Just this week one of his good-buddy appointments, Bernie Kerik, was indicted for tax fraud, corruption, and lying to the White House. (That old saw about judging a man by the company he keeps persists for a reason.)

Terrible decisions: Giuliani was elected mayor soon after the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center by Islamic terrorists. Nonetheless, in 1997, despite opposition by wiser folks, he insisted that the city’s emergency command center be located in the World Trade Center. A terrible decision that cost many lives.

Reckless behavior: In May of 2000, then-mayor Giuliani revealed at a press conference that he and Donna Hanover, his wife of 17 years, would be separating. It was a surprise announcement, not least to his wife, to whom he had not yet delivered the news.

At that same time he identified Judith Nathan, with whom he had been frequently seen around town, as “a very good friend.” She later became the current Mrs. Giuliani.

Disastrous judgment: And then, of course, Bernie Kerik, the ol’ buddy pal with past mob connections (that Rudy claims he didn’t know about) and a long trail of scandal before, during and after his appointments by Rudy to important positions such as NYC Police Commissioner. He even got the President to nominate Bernie to head Homeland Security, a nomination soon abruptly withdrawn.

Rudy stayed by his friend through it all, until about six months ago when he began to put some distance between himself and Kerik. About the time he declared for President, actually.

Lies: Giuliani told reporters he spent more time than many first responders in the toxic dusts of Ground Zero after 9/11, enraging the New York City firefighters because it was flagrantly untrue.

And of course Giuliani likes to take full credit for bringing down crime rates in New York while he was mayor, when in fact credit should go to William Bratton who, while he was still head of the New York Transit Police and even before Giuliani appointed him Police Commissioner in 1994 initiated the “quality of life” approach that so dramatically cut crime in the City. (After too many people became aware of his role, Bratton was moved on and out.)

Allow me to pause here to say that as I write all this I feel a little seedy, as if this were some gossip column or worse, even though these facts are out there already. I just think they are relevant in assessing the character and qualifications of a man who would be President of the United States and leader of the free world.

But still, enough. There’s just too much.

In short, the candor and authenticity that voters seem to crave this season are not Rudy’s to offer. Nor is there any evidence that he actually has the “strength” that he claims should qualify him for the presidency.

What he has, as any New Yorker can tell you, is Attitude. Now, I don’t think that Attitude gets you very far with the rest of the world, but hey! You want Attitude? Choose Rudy.

There are several quite honorable, worthy and even honest men running for the Republican nomination, but Rudy Giuliani is not one of them.

I will agree, though, that he seems to be really effective at reassuring folks AFTER a disaster, so perhaps the next president will consider him to head up FEMA.