I don’t see why anyone who would vote for Giuliani would have a problem with McCain, or why anyone who has a problem with McCain would vote for Giuliani.
It seems that McCain satisfies Giuliani supporters on national defense and as it turns out, trumps him on the big rational for Giuliani last year, which was “only he can beat Hillary.”
As it turns out, McCain whomps Giuliani on the “electability” issue.
So what’s left, really?
> So what’s left, really?
For conservatives?
Not much.
I see it differently than you do. I don’t want either of those guys but if I had to choose one it would be the one that promises to keep GITMO open, not promising to close it. It’s a valid litmus test to me.
Whoever is serious about keeping some whacko muzzies from violently separating us all from our rear ends would never in a million years think of closing GITMO.
To me that’s a BIG difference and it would CERTAINLY, if it came down to it, influence my vote.
Having said that, I still hope Fred stays in the race.
Talk radio says Giuliani is a true conservative and McCain isn't. Yeh, it doesn't make sense to me either.
“What’s left really?”
The death of the Republican Party if McLame is the nominee - he’d never win the general election, and very probably the death of the GOP also if the former mayor of a blighted city is the nominee as well.
Neither of these men come close to representing the ideals of the vast majority of Republicans - neither is anything remotely approaching a Conservative.
-----
Huh? I was a Fred supporter, but I'd vote for Rudy in a New York Second (pun intended) over McCain. He supported Bush's tax cuts (and has advocated more), effectively ran the world's most important city, and even though he's a social liberal, he hasn't made a career out of sticking it to conservatives. He's pro-business, anti-regulation, and most imporantly of all, hasn't been suckered by the Global Warming crowd.
McCain's nomination would be the death of the conservative movement, at least within the GOP. Guiliani would be infinitely preferable.
Hank
McCain is a loose cannon. A real psychopath. That’s a deal breaker for me.
So what’s left, really?Take the fight to the convention and decide it there.
So what’s left, really
Mitt just beat McCain in Michigan days ago, and has more delegates than than anyone else, but he is a proven failure compared to Rudy who hasn’t won anything? Strange logic.
As for Rudy, his strategy reminds me of Patton’s evaluation of Montgomery, “He seems more concerned with not losing than he does with winning”.
“I don’t see why anyone who would vote for Giuliani would have a problem with McCain, or why anyone who has a problem with McCain would vote for Giuliani.”
I’ve struggled with the notion of having to vote for Rudy. I like his take on the War on Terror, I like that he seems to have a bit of a mean streak and I like that it’s personal. I think he’ll kill more terrorists for my tax dollars than any other candidate, and there won’t be any apologies or PC posturing from him.
I don’t really see eye to eye with him on many socially conservative issues, which are kind of important to me. I think the personal baggage of his marital situation(s) is pretty embarrassing, too. Just not the kind of behavior that I’d prefer from our nation’s chief executive.
I think that McCain has a lot of the same baggage; he doesn’t seem to be strong on issues of abortion and homosexual marriage. He also has his own personal skeletons in the closet. The media really hasn’t seized on his affairs during his first marriage, but you know that they will be all over him should he make it to the general election.
Personally, I think the big difference between the 2 is that while I may not like Rudy’s baggage, it is ALL out there for me to inspect. He hasn’t backtracked or had a “conversion” experience with regard to his stance on abortion, he’s been very candid about issues which conservatives have problems with regarding his policies. Additionally, and for some unknown reason, the media have been all over Rudy’s gaffes, while they seem to give McCain a pass, or at least it seems that way? Maybe that’s just me
McCain, on the other hand, has not really been forced to answer in areas that may run contrary to conservative grain and, when he has, he usually engages in a form of political double speak, which is akin to that of the former First Lady. Additionally, McCain has not been thoroughly vetted on the peccadilloes of his first marriage and the Keating five and the media will take him to the wood shed on such vagaries come the general election.
McCain has very actively pursued amnesty for illegal aliens, he has strongly opposed President Bush’s tax cuts, and he’s not really been smoked out for his positions on abortion and homosexual marriage. Some of his statements on these issues are conflicted or nuanced. Rudy on the otherhand, clearly stated that he was pro-abort. He told Laura Ingraham to her face. Ingraham beat him down for it - and the Mayor knew that he was going to get a beatdown, too! I can respect that. It is transparent.
I recently heard an interview with Rick Santorum on The Hugh Hewitt Show (January 11, 2008)
http://www.townhall.com/talkradio/show.aspx?radioshowid=5
Santorum literally hung ALL of McCain’s dirty laundry out to dry. No one has been a bigger obstacle to moving the conservative agenda forward than Senator McCain. Actually, and according to Santorum, he’s not been an obstacle in the smoky back rooms, he’s been a lively advocate and proponent of liberal agenda.
What is McCain for? Well, how about limiting free speech via McCain/Feingold, subverting the Constitutional process of judicial review via the Gang of 14 and his advocacy of the global warming myth. He also seems to have laid claim to the idea that “the surge” was something that he came up with.
I find him to be repugnant.
I don’t like Rudy’s position on abortion, gay marriage and the second amendment, but feel that he can be browbeat by a vocal conservative constituency.
Giuliani says that he will nominate strict constructionists to the Supreme Court in the mold of Scalia and Alito. Why would he put this out there for the purpose of political expediency, when he has not tried to nuance any other of his political positions that go against the conservative base? What have I got to work with other than the Mayor’s word, along with the vouchsafe of Ted Olson, that he will nominate such jurors.
Have we got even that much from the Ancient Mariner??
That is why I would vote for Rudy Giuliani if he is the nominee of the Republican party, and it is why I will not vote for John McCain under any circumstance.
Sorry, but I have to differ. I’d still prefer Fred, but here’s my take on your “it doesn’t make any difference — McCain vs. Rudy”.
Rudy is right on pro-growth tax cuts and tax simplification.
Rudy has executive experience and a history of getting things done while executive.
Rudy was great at 9-11 and in fighting crime in NYC — putting a focus on those challenges when they required it.
Rudy fought the bureaucracy and controlled spending as much as could be expected of a NYC mayor dominated by liberals.
Rudy’s WRONG on abortion and gay marriage — but changes on those issues requires Supreme Court action and Rudy has promised to nominate strict constructionist judges. For those critical of the judges he selected in NYC: he had to select from a nominating list provided by the City Council and he selected the best available.
On immigration, Rudy was WRONG but he was acting as mayor in a city teeming with illegals. I think he’s gotten much better on this issue.
Rudy is a better communicator than probably anyone in our field. He is used to taking 2-3 press conferences a day and taking very confrontation press conferences. He does that well, and after 8 years of President Bush’s ineptitude, wouldn’t it be great to not fear what our leader might say in a press conference?
On personal issues, Rudy is a mess, and that may leave him very vulnerable during the election. But it certainly wouldn’t hurt him compared with Mrs. BJC.
This is a long-winded way of saying: I’d much prefer Fred to be our nominee, but if I have to settle for a second, I’d sure prefer Rudy despite those things I disagree with him on. The primary points we need in the coming years will be a leader in the WOT, a leader in controlling spending and growing the economy, and someone who will put the right people on the Supreme Court so that it gets out of the business of legislating from the bench and back into the business of interpretting laws as to their constitutionality. On all those points, I think Rudy would be a good president. JMHO. And compared with Senator McNasty, Rudy would be vastly superior. And I don’t think I have to qualify that last point as “just my humble opinion.” That is a fact.