And sorry again, but Rudy's tired and empty tough guy rhetoric just isn't going to cut it, either for me or for most voters concerned about national security. Has the guy said in specific detail about what he'd do about ANY issue?
> Sorry, you haven’t explained why it would be reasonable to expect that Giuliani would be better than Clinton on the war and foreign policy. Exactly how would their policies be different? Say what you want about Clinton, but as co-president she at least had the balls to attack five, count ‘em, five foreign countries.
Presumably we can agree that attacking many foreign countries is not necessarily a good foreign policy. As far as how I think they differ, here are a couple of examples:
1. Giuliani states that he will persevere in Iraq, Afghanistan and the general War on Terror until victory. Clinton promises to withdraw troops as soon as a face saving method is found.
2. Giuliani stated that the only think worse than attacking Iran is Iran with a nuclear weapon. Clinton stated that the only thing worse that Iran with a nuclear weapon is attacking Iran.
These are two very direct comparisons. You may choose to believe him or not, but it is disingenuous to justify your dislike of Giuliani by claiming that there is no difference between him and Clinton. The only place where Giuliani’s and Clinton’s positions appear to match is on abortion. And even on abortion Giuliani’s stated policies with regard to possible Supreme Court nominees appear to be significantly different from Clinton’s.
I do not pretend to know how most voters will act. I do think it would be self-defeating to withhold a vote from a candidate who agrees with your positions, let us say, 50% of the time. Because you may well get a President who disagrees with your positions 100% of the time.