Americans elect governors and former governors for president. In time of war, we don't elect senators (Mrs. BiIsIs Qlintongue D-SOROS), representatives (Kookspinach D-UFO), mayors (Rudy G. D-NARAL, M. Boomboombaad D-VPC), or others who've never headed a state's executive branch.

overnors have gained the experience of running an entire executive branch which the next person serving in our nation's highest elected office will need to lead us to total victory in this World War. None but they — not their staves, their friends, or their spouses — possess this experience. It is not transferable or relatable to anyone else. Its essence transcends both the keenest observation and the clearest explanation. Their full exercise of executive powers, judgments, and discretions could not and never can be successfully shared.

Of those contending for their parties' presidential nominations, four are governors: Republicans Jim Gilmore of Virginia, Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, and Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, and Demoqrat Bill Richardson of New Mexico.

John David Ashcroft of Missouri, I believe, should be included among them.

Candidate Birthdate Public Office Experience* gubernatorial (years) other executive legislative judicial Ashcroft (R-MO)  May 9, 1942 8 United States Attorney General Missouri Attorney General (2 terms) Missouri State Auditor Senator lawyer Gilmore (R-VA)  October 6, 1949 4 Virginia Attorney General   lawyer Huckabee (R-AR)  August 24, 1955 11 Arkansas Lieutenant Governor     Romney (R-MA)  March 12, 1947 4     law degree Richardson (D-NM)  November 15, 1947 4 United States Ambassador to the United Nations United States Secretary of Energy Representative (7 terms)

* Executive experience includes only elective or appointive office at the federal or state level, legislative only a seat in either house of the U.S. Congress, and judicial only a federal or statewide judgeship or court office (e.g., admitted attorney).

All of the above are exceptionally qualified to be our country's next president. In any listing of each one's pros and cons, both as his party's nominee and as the 44th President of the United States, experience as a state's chief executive would be at the top of his pros column.

In the case of Mr. Ashcroft:

Pros

Cons

Executive experience: two-term Governor of a major Midwestern state — one that possesses 11 electoral votes — as well as its Attorney General; Chairman of National Governors Association Federal legislative experience: United States Senator Federal law enforcement experience: United States Attorney General, the nation's highest law enforcement position second only to the president Foreign policy experience: personally worked with U.S. allies and their law enforcement agencies to build and improve relations with them and obtain their cooperation in denying the enemy access to funds and resources Proven reliability: helped to keep the United States from again getting attacked worked to beef up and streamline immigration-related prosecutions and protect state and local officials' inherent authority to enforce immigration laws helped to effect "lowest violent crime rate in US history; lowest rate of crimes with guns in US history; declining teenage drug rate for the first time in a decade" Proven integrity and good character: solid conservative man of strong faith and principles Values shared by majority of Americans: will never grab either the most certain means we law-abiding citizens have to defend ourselves against thugs, criminals, and psychopaths, or any of our hard-earned dollars to fund the mass extermination of unborn babies will crush and obliterate nazislamist "nuisances" (© 2004 al-Qerry et al.), never coddle or appease them will continue to stand up against Big Labor, Big Illegal Immigration, and other Big Liberal enemies of Americans' freedoms and independence opposed "Most Favored Nation status for China, the IMF bailout, Al Gore's Global Warming Treaty and (BiIsIs al-Qlinton's) ill-considered expansion of NATO (as well as Qlintoon's) 1997 Big Government budget deal," and "has sponsored legislation to abolish the National Endowment for the Arts, and to enact an immediate and massive across-the-board tax cut"

Memesteam Media and other liberals' Wailing-n-Knashing O'Teethometers would be locked to the max (OK, so this isn't really a con) Liberals and other oddballs "fear Ashcroft as much as he fears God": He once vowed that were he ever to become president, he would publicly kneel and pray for divine guidance while being sworn in. That's the sort of statement that makes centrist liberals ["centrist" as in "in between Lenin and Marx"], hardcore lefties, and the odd atheistic right-winger fear Ashcroft as much as he fears God. (On second thought, this is actually a pro) Gallbladder removed in 2004 (Gall to oppose liberalism still fully intact and functional) Lawyer (Hey, nobody's perfect) College professor (But not a liberal one)

Another advantage conservatives and Republicans would gain from nominating

John Ashcroft was born in Chicago, Illinois, on May 9, 1942, but grew up in Springfield, Missouri. He graduated from Springfield's Hillcrest High School in 1960 and concluded his studies at Yale University in 1964. He then returned to Chicago, earning his J.D. from the University of Chicago Law School in 1967. After finishing his legal studies, Ashcroft began teaching at Southwest Missouri State University until running for Congress in 1972. In 1974, Ashcroft became an assistant to Missouri's attorney general, a position he himself was elected to in 1976. In 1984, he became governor of Missouri, serving for two terms as the state's top public official. Ashcroft was elected chairman of the National Governors Association in 1991. His popularity as governor provided him with the momentum for a successful Senate campaign in 1994. Ashcroft lost his bid for reelection in 2000 but was chosen by President George W. Bush to serve as attorney general. John Ashcroft announced his resignation after the 2004 election.

– AmericanPresident.org

John Ashcroft for president is that he knows things about Hillbillery et al. which no other campaign does or ever could. He has read every report about every investigation of their nefarious dealings documented over the years by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Although he may not improperly disclose the specifics, he is able to direct his campaign staff where precisely to look to uncover for the American people information they need for making a fully informed decision this election.

Take, for example, BiIsIs and Hilldabeastly Rotten al-Qlinton's close friend Sandy Burglar. The papers their good pal stole from our national archives are so incriminating — showing just how much each one's claim that their co-administration "took (terrorism) more seriously than the current president" is an absolute load of hog wash — the Qlinton Burglar had to do everything he could or was told to hide them, including stuffing them in his shorts.

He instinctively loves the Constitution, liberty and the rule of law.

–Ron Byers

When I sat before the 9/11 Commission, I encouraged them to study carefully the classified Millennium After Action Review, which amounted to President Clinton's National Security Council plan to disrupt the al Qaeda network in the U.S. and abroad. Unfortunately, our government had failed to implement fully that plan, even though deterrents were spelled out clearly, a full seventeen months before the horrendous attacks of September 11, 2001.

Ironically, the NSC Millennium After Action Review itself declares that the United States barely missed major terrorist attacks in 1999, and cites luck as playing a major role. Among the many vulnerable areas of homeland defenses identified in the review as needing improvement, Justice Department surveillance and FISA operations were specifically criticized as "glaring weaknesses."

It was clear from the review that actions taken in the millennium period should not be the operating model for the U.S. government when it comes to preventing terrorist strikes against our homeland. The March 2000 review warned the Clinton administration of a substantial al Qaeda network and affiliated foreign terrorist presence within the U.S. capable of supporting additional terrorist attacks here.

Furthermore, fully seventeen months before the September 11 attacks, the review recommended disrupting the al Qaeda network and terrorist presence in the United States by using immigration violations, minor criminal infractions, tougher visa restrictions, and stronger border controls — destabilizing terrorist groups and taking them off the streets.

Interestingly, as I explained to the 9/11 Commission, "These are the same aggressive, often-criticized law enforcement tactics that we have unleashed for thirty-one months to stop another al Qaeda attack. These are the same tough tactics we deployed to catch Ali al-Marri, who was sent here by al Qaeda on September 10, 2001, to facilitate a second wave of terrorist attacks on Americans."

But despite the warnings and the clear vulnerabilities identified by the NSC in 2000, no new pre-9/11 disruption strategy to attack the al Qaeda network within the United States was deployed. It was ignored in the Justice Department's five-year counterterrorism strategy. From my perspective, it was buried.

I did not see this highly classified review before September 11, 2001. It was not among the thirty items on which I was briefed in the transition period when I took office. Nor was it advanced as a disruption strategy to me during the 2001 summer threat period by the NSC staff, the same agency that had written the review more than a year earlier.

Why the blueprint for security was not followed during the Clinton years, and particularly after the report raised warnings in the year 2000, we may never know. I do know from my personal experience that those who take the kind of tough measures called for in the plan will feel the heat in modern America.

Some people in our country seem more concerned about respecting the dignity and privacy of criminals and terrorists than they are about having an airport full of people obliterated, or a completely booked hotel blown to bits. Perhaps they think [sic], Let's not get so upset about attacks on our embassies or military bases. Maybe, they surmise, the terrorists have good reason for attacking us. We have no right to be harassing innocent people in our country. For some people, not even the grotesque images that filled our television screens after al Qaeda's blatant attacks on 9/11 seem enough to wake them out of their utopia feel-good world.

I've been there, and I've heard the impassioned, amorphous rhetoric about infringing on the "civil liberties" of potential terrorists in our towns, cities, malls, and sporting arenas. Frankly, the sense of urgency in America may not have been enough to overcome concern about the outcry and criticism that most certainly would have followed such tough tactics. But the tactics themselves were right; the suggestions made by the Millennium After Action Report worked. I know they worked because, although we did not have access to that particular report until much later, the Justice Department put into practice those very tactics, what I called our "spit on the sidewalk" policy: detain or arrest suspected terrorists on any legal grounds possible. And the attacks stopped.

Certainly, we must never forget that terrorists take a long view of history — they waited for eight years between attacks on the World Trade Center — but after 9/11 there has not been a successful terrorist attack on our nation for more than fifty-eight months, since implementing the aggressive "spit on the sidewalk" strategy, or to date as I write these words. That fact alone causes one to wonder what might have happened — or not have happened — had the Millennium After Action recommendations been fully deployed rather than discarded, had they been fully implemented upon delivery rather than lost in the bureaucracy.

It is impossible to say that the Justice Department was not aware of the report in 2000. They knew the review warned of a substantial al Qaeda network and affiliated terrorist presence within the United States, and it was critical of the nation's security measures taken prior to 2000.

Yet something about that report must have seemed either profoundly valuable or extremely embarrassing. Former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger apparently felt the classified report was telling enough that he would risk smuggling draft copies of it out of the National Archives, ostensibly to prepare testimony for the 9/11 Commission. Berger went even further, taking copies of the classified after action report to his office and destroying them.²

–	John Ashcroft, Never Again: Securing America and Restoring Justice (New York: Center Street, 2006), pp. 258-60.

Also, because Hillbillery illegally "vacuumed" the dirt out of the FBI files on their opponents long before Mr. Ashcroft arrived in Washington, they don't really have any on him.

Mr. Ashcroft choosing Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to be his running mate would heighten this advantage. With Miss Rice on the ticket, the Demoqlintonic Party nominee's already bleak chances of selling Her Nibsly self as somehow better prepared or more experienced in foreign policy matters will be nil.

All he needs to do now is formally announce his candidacy and declare its goals.

The best place and opportunity he has for making that announcement is in front of the Gateway Arch at the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial in St. Louis. This backdrop would exemplify the Gateway to New Frontiers — America's expanding frontiers of victory and peace, energy and commerce, space exploration and settlement, individual freedoms and personal independence from government's oppressive maternalism — which his campaign would pioneer and represent. Our nation's tallest monument would help him tangibly relate its most elevating messages to all Americans, especially if he launches that campaign on October 28, the 42nd anniversary of the Gateway's completion on the banks of the Mississippi.

Formal Announcement Dates of Non-Incumbents Who Won Election
Year	Month	Day	Candidate
EY (Election Year) e.g., 2008	November
	October
	September
	August
	July
	June	4	D.D. Eisenhower (1952)
	May
	April
	March
	February	12	H.C. Hoover (1928)
		1	R.M. Nixon (1968)
	January	23	F.D. Roosevelt (1932)
		2	J.F. Kennedy (1960)
EY-1 e.g., 2007	December
	November	13	R.W. Reagan (1979)
	October	12	G.H.W. Bush (1987)
		3	B.J. Qlinton (1991)
	September
	August
	July
	June	12	G.W. Bush (1999)
	May
	April
	March
	February
	January
EY-2 e.g., 2006	December	12	J.E. Qarter (1974)
	November

From there he would begin explaining its goals as well as how to achieve them. By the time caucus and primary elections start he will have put together the campaign staff and raised enough funds to help him earn our votes and win the Republican nomination.

The additional advantages our whole country would gain from electing Mr. Ashcroft president are summarized in these quotes:

We remain committed to welcoming legal immigrants, but we will not tolerate violations of our borders. We will have even less patience for those who seek to violate the nation's immigration laws. The laws of the United States deserve and demand respect. – John Ashcroft

There are voices in the Republican Party today who preach pragmatism, who champion conciliation, who counsel compromise. I stand here today to reject those deceptions. If ever there was a time to unfurl the banner of unabashed conservatism, it is now. It is immoral for a Republican Congress to tell Americans who are working harder and spending less time with their families that we can't afford to cut their taxes. – John Ashcroft

Finally, when arguing with any of the moonbats who're running the Democrooked Party (into the ground), just know their template on this subject is never going to stray measurably from the one below — provided here as a public service.

Given that the above is all Dhimmiqrats and other liberals will ever have for their "arguments" against Mr. Ashcroft's election, nothing can stop the following noontime conversation from taking place on January 20, 2009, at the center of the west front of our Capitol.

ASHCROFT RICE '08

Labels: John Ashcroft, They Campaign We Decide '08, World War IV

	8:55 AM

Comments (registered users)