Lets be honest. No subterfuge or obfuscation. There is really no evidence that Rudy Giuliani is any stronger on national defense and national security issues than anyother Republican in the poll driven field of possible candidates for 2008. All the names on the current list of possible GOP candidates are committed to finishing what we started in Iraq, committed to staying the course in the WOT, committed to our alliance with Israel, and at home fostering a strong homeland security effort. The GOP should be nominating the most conservative candidate, not the most liberal candidate.
I think he showed his real character by telling the Shiek to take his ten million and shove it.... in other words, he will not be bought off and that is a good thing!
Personally, I am beginning to think that Rudy is the perfect candidate for the Republican Party. They don't want any more conseravtives, and Rudy isn't a conservative.
I don't care if Hillary! is running, though, I won't vote for Rudy. If the 'Pubbies nominate him, its simply more evidence they aren't my party any more.
You could almost ask this question. Is there any evidence that Giuliani is any stronger on defense than Lieberman?
If not, shouldn't we just nominate Lieberman?
Unfortunately, none of the "most conservative" candidates has even a remote prayer of winning the nomination much less the presidency. If more than 5% of the population even knows their names it is only to scorn them as idiots.
However, he is MUCH, MUCH TOO PRO-BIG GOVERNMENT for me. If you think the govt grew too much under Bush43--I shudder to think of how much bigger, more controlling, more intrusive, more expensive, more regulating, and more intimidating it would be under a Pres Guiliani.
No thanks. He would never get my vote.