Posted on 02/25/2007 4:17:02 PM PST by Jim Robinson
..well, the mantra around here seems to be something like "Rudy is the best choice--because to vote otherwise Hillary will get in", or something like that...
it helps to maintain the proper focus - when you see dozens of people jumping out of a hundred story building landing on the pavement a few hundred yards in front of you, and smell the bodies burning from the jet fuel, and attend 100+ funerals, and see lower manhattan destroyed.
Both Gore and Kerry went to Viet Nam. So did McCain. Do we want any of them to lead the country during the 9/11 time?
So, you support John McCain?
McPain flew jets in Vietnam, but most of his time was spent in a POW camp (very possibly aiding the enemy). Duncan Hunter was an Army Ranger in Vietnam and spent plenty of time in REAL COMBAT.
In all seriousness, I think Rudy's response to 9/11 cast him as a leader, and the claim is that he's a competent executive. However aside from that there is nothing in his past to suggest that he'd be a better CIC than most of the other nominees.
I certainly don't see why it makes sense to cast aside social conservatism to elect a person who may be a better CIC.
John F'n Kerry was a Vietnam vet? First I ever heard of it.
Now, what are Rudy's sterling qualifications to be the BEST man to be CIC?
That is a three year old data set. Sorry.
He's miles away from being a conservative. That's my only problem with him.
On a serious note, I did appreciate the way he told the SA Prince, Suleyman bin Skyhook Abednegone, to stick his 10 mil check, immediately after 911.
That don't get my vote, though.
I've seen very little other qualifications, except for the fact that he was the mayor of the most liberal city in the world.
He may know municipal budgets, he can get the garbage picked up, he can get the sewage treated and he can put the police on the street.
But he wants my guns, he has no compunction with the murder of a fetus, he has no real concern about the violation of our borders, etc.
I see a Ross Perot situation looming here, though.
From some of the posts I see, if Rudy if the nominee, a lot of them will desert for the third party.
That's how we got that POS, Clintoon.
As I've said before, if I must and there is no other way, I will vote for the "R" before I vote for any "D".
But only if he is shoved down my throat.
I really and sincerely hope it does not come to that.
No way, no how Rudy gets my vote, rather vote for Hillery then him, at least that way I know what I am getting!
And here is why!
Here's the exact quote from the man himself that makes it so I will not vote for him, in 1996, in an interview by the New York Post's Jack Newfield:
"Most of Clinton's policies are very similar to most of mine."
Rudy's response? He went to Mass. With his mistress. Leaving his wife at home.
You do know what you wrote above is pretty revolting, yes?
That's okay...I realized you simply cut and pasted that information. Not trying to be picky. Cheers.
If you rephrase the question, "among the likely presidential candidates, which one is most qualified to enforce the laws of the United States", you'd have to put Rudy at or near the top of that list.
he wasn't the mayor until January 1994. the first WTC attack was february 1993.
Evidently he would wage war on the Clintons . . . and unborn babies, of course.
I think it's mostly his personality, popularity and the way he led 9-11. He is not good for Social Conservatives that's for sure.
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.