Smerconish asked, and I this is not verbatim, but fairly close, "If you know we're going to be in a fight with Iran's Ahmadinejead, who would you rather have in charge, Hillary or Rudi Giuliani?
But the funny thing is, it's not just the answer that fits the audience, it's the question.
Now for MY audience, the question is, "If there's a chance that there will be a fight with Iran's Ahmadinejead, who would you rather have in charge to PREVENT the fight, Rudy Giuliani or Hillary Clinton (or anyone but Rudy.)
We've been down the road of hiring a leader who looks for fights, who is annoyed and impatient with diplomacy. We don't need another hypertestosteroned cowboy. We need to start looking for leaders who will keep us strong AND out of war.
But I think if both questions were asked of a majority of Americans, most would prefer a leader who could keep us out of war. And, if we had to go to war, the majority would prefer a leader they would trust to assess the long term responsibilities for a conflict, so a bungled "Mission accomplished" could never happen, nor would a four year plus occupation.
I think Giuliani would act more impulsively than Bush. I think he would, like BUsh, surround himself with sycophants who would tell him what he would want to hear. At least BUsh has a solid wife, who seems to calm and stabilize him. Giulian's wife is frightening. Who knows what affect she'd have on him if he pissed her off and she was giving him a bad day... or night. Giuliani is a time bomb. It's not a matter of if he'll go to war. It's just a question of with who and how long he'll wait.
In high school, I got in a few fist fights, virtually always with guys who had reps as tough guys. I was too dumb to not get in them. By college, I learned how to stay out of fights, how to settle conflict, how to walk away and keep my ego and integrity.
Most grown-ups know that fighting is not the way to solve problems or disagreements. It's strange that so many right wingers think the answers are also about fighting.
But, as I said, it's not just the answers. The questions are even more important, and in the Case of Michael Smerconish, he's asking the wrong one.
Who would you rather have in a crisis where the goal is to work out a solution that does not lead to war?
Who would you rather have managing the budget?