"I'm back to my original thinking that we'd be almost no better off with Giuliani than with whatever democrat wins."
That may be the wisest thinking.
I remember Giuliani from his days as mayor, and how he broke the mob, reduced crime and stood up to the race fascists like Sharpton, et al. Plus, after 9/11 he was magnificent.
BUT, as ardent a Pro-Lifer as I am, and almost that with the 2nd Amendment, I do see SOME logic to the "hold your nose and vote Rudy, he's the only one that can stop Hitliary" argument.
But, would a Rudy term bring MORE liberal destruction of our country than would a Hitliary term would, where all could SEE with their own eyes her vicious, hateful destruction of the constitution and resist it?
I think California would have been better off had Grey Davis been retained, and a Tom McClintock been elected later, than the absolute destruction of the Cali GOP and any hint of restraint whatsoever, is the same thing true for Hitliary and Giuliani?
I'm torn, and cannot really see the right thing to do.
Ed
That is really a great point. I've thought about how much resistance was mustered against Hitlerie's health care plan. I think the country's visceral reaction help generate support that propelled the Republican Revolution in the mid-90's. When I see how much nonsense passed with Bush in office (e.g. drug entitlements), might conservatives have better success fighting liberal policy with an overt socialist in office than with a covert one? I guess I'd rather throw my support to a true conservative even if it is a loosing battle. Still, I shudder to think the kind of judges Hillary would appoint.
signed, UNUSUALLY CONFUSED IN CONSERVATIVE AMERICA