Posted on 04/11/2007 8:31:06 AM PDT by rbookward
I was in the "I'll vote for him if he's nominated" camp, but, after reading all these articles and posts, I can't do that with a clear conscience any more.
Why? Because he is, to my way of thinking, an "ends justify the means" type of person. For example...
1. He sued gun manufacturers in an effort to reduce violent crime in NYC. That says to me he doesn't care who else he hurts, as long as he gets what he wants. Of course, putting all the gun manufacturers out of business won't solve his problem anyway, so it's even worse than no solution at all.
2. He sees abortion as a way to reduce the number of unwanted children and help young women get on with their lives. Again, he doesn't seem to care who else gets hurt, (the child in this case) as long as he gets the results.
3. He embraces and condones homosexual behavior, which is detrimental the the very core element of any society: the family. That behavior is also one of the major vectors for sex-related diseases. Of course his endorsement makes him look inclusive and brings in some more votes--and that's all that matters, isn't it?
4. And more, but I'm out of time.
So, no. I can't vote for him in the general election. I hope our party is smarter than to run him.
I would vote for him but only because I can’t vote for a democrat or to put a democrat in office.
I wouldn’t like myself afterwards and would need to shower several times to get the icky off.
The thing that Rudy has going for him is he does have good leadership abilities and he is far better than any alternative out there the Democrats would put up. Rudy would be good on the war on terror, marginal on taxes and spending, and poor on social issues. If I had to make a choice, I would reluctantly vote for him.
I won’t vote for him because I’m not a New Yorker. He may have been a great mayor of NYC but the rest of the country is not NYC. Not by a longshot.
If Rudy were the “Republican” candidate, I would HAVE TO VOTE FOR HIM. Why? Because I refuse to put a criminal, power-mad Marxist in the Oval Office. That is the only reason he would get my vote.
I will not ever knowingly vote for a person who endorses, encourages, accepts, or otherwise condones child killing.
I know Conservatives and Rudy is No Conservative!
No one should bite on this one.
No.
I voted for “Well, at least he’s better than the other guy” Perry in last year’s election. He hasn’t stopped screwing us over since.
No,
I don’t trust him.
I concur with your reason and would only add:
Not voting or staying home only helps Hillary (assuming she is the Dem candidate).
LIBERAL, 'gun-grabbing', pro-abortion, pro-amnesty, big government pro-litigation, gay rights CRUDSADER, who supports using our tax money for public funding of abortion, and who's personal life is such a TRAIN WRECK--that it almost makes Bill Clinton look like a good, decent family man and loving husband!!
Other than that, JulieAnnie is ok. (rolling eyes)
If Rudy was up against someone like Hillary, I’d vote for him and take a shower immediately afterwards.
If the Democrats put up someone like Joe Lieberman versus Rudy, there wouldn’t be any real difference between the two. In that case, I’d vote third party.
— rbookward, little marketing research? This one should be ZOTTED. Earn you keep somewhere else.
No one should bite on this one.
Well, if it’s market research, then I’m sharing the results with everyone on FR.
Actually, I’m just a curious guy.
Any one of the three, abortion, gays and guns, would be enough for me to opt out, and the combination is a killer.
No.
The man doesn’t trust freedom, he doesn’t understand the Constitution, and he loves only power.
If he is the nominee, I will vote third-party. He’s as dangerous as the worst Democrat.
Not a chance.
Rudy’s far too liberal on social issues. Voting for him would in essence be voting for a Democrat.
The federal executive has already become far too powerful. Rudy would take it even further in that direction.
Why? Because based on his past job performance, I believe he's a competent govt manager who would do a good job.
Which, I thought, is how we're s'pose to do this. I don't get the folks who say, "Even tho they have no govt executive experience, I'm voting for X because he/she agrees with me on these issues. I won't vote for anyone who doesn't think like me."
That's how we got where we are today. We pass on the folks who prove they would do a good job, and go with people who think like us.
Which, in my experience, is a guaranteed way to get lousy employees.
The problem is, with Rudy you have a power-mad authoritarian as an alternative choice - and an authoritarians who shares views with the opposition on abortion, gun control, the gay agenda, hate crimes and global warming.
The GOP needs to offer voters a choice. Not someone just slightly better than the other candidate.
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.