Posted on 04/19/2006 6:33:31 AM PDT by areafiftyone
Well .. I would support Rudy any day of the week. He's not perfect - but nether is life.
THE KEY IS BEATING HILLARY! Does anybody with a brain want that mess back in the White House ..??
Rudy.....
He's got my vote.
If he decides to run - he's got mine. But whomever wins the primary even if its not Rudy will get my vote too! I refuse to let that evil witch in the White House.
If you did, you would understand why he left her.
Some women are not only nuts, but just plumb crazy.
Dear staytrue,
"Open minded rinos will support conservatives, but for 'real conservatives' supporting 'rinos,' You can forget it."
Funny, from where I sit, it doesn't seem that way at all. I'm in Maryland, and voted and supported our current Republican governor, Bob Ehrlich, even though he's quite far from being a Republican conservative. I notice that Sen. Santorum pulled out all the stops for Mr. Specter, even though there was a viable, real, actual, genuine conservative who could have won the nomination. Many of us were supportive of Mr. Schwarzenegger in California, and of Mr. Giuliani when he was running for different office in New York.
We recognize that real, conservative Republicans aren't going to play well with every electorate in every state.
But the office of President of the United States of America is a little different. Mr. Giuliani might pass for a Republican in New York, but not nationally. It is important that an actual Republican run for the presidency as the Republican nominee, rather than a liberal who calls himself a Republican.
I have nothing against Mr. Giuliani, I think he's a swell guy. If he wants to be mayor of New York City, or a US Senator from New York, or governor of New York, I'll cheer him on. Heck, I might even be persuaded to send a small donation.
But I won't support him or vote for him for President of the United States.
sitetest
I've heard this point made countless times, and yet I've never seen anyone present any kind of solid evidence to support it.
You said, in part: Nonetheless, I won't vote for Mr. Giuliani for president.
***
Would you vote for Hillary, or essentially do so by not voting at all, if Giuliani were to be the candidate?
I agree. Rudy is a tough, and very patriotic man. I disagree with him on one or two issues, but he is strong and can make tough decisions. I can't imagine anyone who took the bull by the horns that Rudy did on 911.
Dear NCLaw441,
"Would you vote for Hillary, or essentially do so by not voting at all, if Giuliani were to be the candidate?"
No, I wouldn't vote for Mrs. Clinton. However, not voting for Mr. Giuliani is not the same as voting for Mrs. Clinton. It is not voting for Mr. Giuliani. In terms of the actual arithmetic of an election, although failing to vote for Mr. Giuliani would aid Mrs. Clinton, it wouldn't assist her as much as an actual vote for Mrs. Clinton.
However, that really all misses the point. The point is that if Mr. Giuliani is nominated by the Republican Party, a significant portion of the Republican coalition will be effectively disenfranchised in that the two candidates will be virtually indistinguishable on the issues that matter most to social conservatives. We will have already lost the election.
It would be different if the party wished to nominate someone who wasn't especially good on the primary social conservative issues. Someone like Sen. Allen, who appears to be in favor of overturning Roe, but who is not really all that pro-life, or someone like Sen. McCain, who may not be entirely sincere about our issues, would be acceptable, at least to me. We'd be getting a half loaf, or at least some significant part of the loaf that mattered to us. That's called compromise, settling for someone who isn't ideal, but who gives you some of what you want.
In Mr. Giuliani, however, we have the ideal candidate to drive away social conservatives. He's pro-abortion, including pro-partial birth abortion, pro-government-paid abortion, etc. He's pro-homosexual marriage, pro-homosexual adoption. He's very anti-RBKA (an important matter to many social conservatives). Furthermore, he's shown antipathy to other parts of the conservative platform, especially tax cuts. He loudly endorsed Mr. Cuomo over Mr. Pataki, and that's at a time when Mr. Pataki was behaving like a genuine budget-cutting conservative.
With Mr. Giuliani, we social conservatives not only don't get a half loaf, or even a slice, but not even a crumb. And we can hardly console ourselves that at least he's on board with the rest of the conservative agenda. With Mr. Giuliani, we essentially get someone who is a thorough-going liberal on every issue except the war.
I'm sorry, that's just not enough for my vote. If the rest of the party insists on a candidate that is absolutely unacceptable to a large group belonging to the party's coalition, then the party must expect to lose a significant percentage of that group.
sitetest
So if it was a choice between the witch or Rudy protecting this country are you going to stay home?
....."Lincoln Chaffee used to be a good Republican.
".........
Lincoln Chaffee has always been good for nothing.
He was a small town mayor, when his dad died in office, and was elevated way above his talent level by the governor.
He's got my vote.
Mine too. I spent 15 years in upstate NY and have followed Rudy for quite some time. He's a tough man and can make tough decisions. Too few folks have read his resume, nor have observed him in action.
Site:
Thank you for your detailed and courteous reply. I certainly won't quarrel with you regarding Giuliani's conservative bona fides, or lack thereof, at least not for the purpose of this discussion. I do disagree about not voting for a candidate being practically any different than voting for the opponent. We have lived through presidential elections in which it was clear that every vote counts, and may be decisive.
Seldom have I voted for a candidate that meets all of MY qualifications. I do not typically vote solely on the basis of party affiliation, but will do so when I don't have enough information about the candidate, or when the two candidates seem otherwise indistinguishable from each other. I tend to prioritize my issues, and vote for the candidate who best appears (I have been fooled more than once by false promises) to embrace my highest priorities better than the other candidate(s). Unless I am utterly without a clue, I never fail to vote for whom I believe to be the better candidate, even if neither candidate is truly worthy of a vote. This method may not be totally honorable, but if I thought that my vote, or failure to vote, might decide an election, especially one in which any Clinton was running, and I failed to vote... well, let's not imagine that. I even voted for Dole in '96, when few thought there was much chance he would win (although he did get NC, as I recall).
Thank you again for your response, which I shall review again after posting this.
I support the President, being a committed Bushbot, and would vote for Rudy too.
She was given to monologues, I understand.
I'm a conservative and I think his hiring practices as mayor were fine.
1. Pro-illegal immigration.
2. Anti-gun.
3. Pro-gay.
4. Immoral hypocrite.
5. Scumbag friends.
6. Mixed fiscal record.
7. A total a--hole as a person.
THe only people who believe Rudy the RINO has a chance at the nomination are the idiots who believe what they read in the NY Post. GET A CLUE MORONS! RUDY AINT GOING TO GET IT!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.