Posted on 02/25/2007 4:17:02 PM PST by Jim Robinson
Ditto. At the end of the day, McCain would get my vote. Rudy? Never.
I was responding to the premise that being in town for a national tragedy was a qualification to be the next president. The example offered was the commander of Pearl Harbor in 1944.
6 people died in the 1993 WTC attack. the scale just wasn't the same as 9/11.
God and most of the known universe.
I haven't figured out which would be worse. Both are straining for a photo-finish in that department. The real problem is that we are being offered Dumb and Dumber for the top two candidates at the moment.
And McCain has helped undermine the WOT --unforgiveable in my book.
And, he agrees that the WOT shouldn't be prosecuted in court...or treated like any other felony crimes.
He's not a rabid conservative...but then neither was Ronald Reagan on every issue.
His liberal positions on abortion and guns don't phase me because the voters won't allow a repeal in today's climate. In fact, those liberal postions may give rise to the BlueDogs again.
Also, if you want to view terrorism as a criminal matter - many do - Giuliani is the man, hands down. Have any of these other candidates faced a true crisis? One where people are flying out of buildings around them, where clouds of smoke are suffocating people, where morale is breaking? Anyone can sit back in their office and say, "I would do this." Giuliani had to actually face a crisis, and he came up aces.
If he had demanded "personal revenge" 9/11 might have been avoided.
Giuliani was a very strong and capable leader as mayor of New York. He took a city that was a financial basket case, with riots out of control, tourists afraid to visit, businesses leaving town, crime all over the place, and step by step he straightened it all out.
The press attacked him constantly, and he gave them as good as he got. When the police were obliged to shoot black criminals, for instance, he stood up for them, and faced the press down. Every other mayor had given in on this kind of issue. Dinkins even pulled the police out and let blacks riot for three days without even a policeman in sight. As a result, a young Hasidic Jew was murdered.
Giuliani attended every funeral for a policeman or fireman killed in the line of duty, from the time he took office. And again after 9/11.
I don't think there's any doubt that he would be a strong leader of the War on Terror. McCain was in the military but was an incompetent who lost five of his own planes, was taken prisoner, and may have betrayed his country.
BUT, he just said a few days ago that he's sticking to his view that a woman has a RIGHT to an abortion. Very, very disappointing.
And he's weak on several other issues, including the Second Amendment.
So, unless things change, I can no longer justify voting for him.
Thanks for the link, but I would not ever vote for Rudy-Pa-Tudie.
He is Clinton.
The best quilification I can think of is he's not Hillery. If it's Giuliani vs Hillary, I'm sure not voting for Hillary.
PS. Though, to be sure, until I hear what Rudy has to say these days about (a) illegal immigrants, and (b) the 2nd Amendment I won't know if I can join his bandwagon.
OK, Rudy is responsible for 9-11. are you happy now?
Rudy is just another Left wing Clintonite.
I think you are insane.
My desire for revenge does not qualify me to be CIC.
No, I'm being facetious, the premise that Rudy is the best qualified because "the war on terror is personal to him" is insane.
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.