[FairOpinion]

"If Rudy Giuliani were running for the DEMOCRATIC nomination for President, would you cross party lines and vote for him? "


It all depends on WHO would be running against him.

And election is NOT between some imaginary people vs. real ones, it's between TWO (READ AGAIN: TWO) candidates and you MUST choose between them, or you are voting for the worst one.

So again: you have the choice Hillary vs. Rudy. Are you going to be a "conservative for Hillary" or get out and vote for the Republican candidate, who, at the moment appears to very likely be Rudy.

[SIDENET]

So again: you have the choice Hillary vs. Rudy.

The primaries haven't even taken place yet.

[Jorge]

So again: you have the choice Hillary vs. Rudy. Are you going to be a "conservative for Hillary" or get out and vote for the Republican candidate, who, at the moment appears to very likely be Rudy.

You're talking to some of the "sit it out" morons who helped give the the Dem Congress we now are blessed with.

[mkjessup]

"If Rudy Giuliani were running for the DEMOCRATIC nomination for President, would you cross party lines and vote for him?"
It all depends on WHO would be running against him.

OK, I'll play. Let's say (hypothetically) that is was someone like Mitt Romney. Do you vote for the 'Rat nominee (Rudy) or do you go with Romney?

And election is NOT between some imaginary people vs. real ones, it's between TWO (READ AGAIN: TWO) candidates and you MUST choose between them, or you are voting for the worst one.

That is nothing but absolutism. If both candidates equally stink, your vote is still going to bring you the aroma of dead fish on the morning after Election Day.

So again: you have the choice Hillary vs. Rudy. Are you going to be a "conservative for Hillary" or get out and vote for the Republican candidate, who, at the moment appears to very likely be Rudy.

Don't count your Rudys before they hatch (or at least until they make it through the primaries intact. I'd lay even odds that as the media puts a brighter and brighter spotlight on Rudy, he may decide that it's not worth that kind prying into his personal history, and just like he did in 2000, he'll withdraw from the race in question.

Hillary is likewise, not automatically assured of the 'Rat nomination. It's too easy to forget that it is over a year before the primary process will be completed, and the respective nominating conventions of each major party convened, and THAT is a political eternity.

A LOT can happen between now and then.

[sockmonkey]

So again: you have the choice Hillary vs. Rudy.

I see so little difference in the two of them, I would probably stay home on election day.

[WOSG]

"And election is NOT between some imaginary people vs. real ones, it's between TWO (READ AGAIN: TWO) candidates"

Wrong. There are multiple candidates in the primary.
The primary decision is to decide who the best Republican candidate should be. There are many factors, and when you weight them *all* in totality, Rudy does NOT in any way add up to the best choice for conservative Republicans:

http://travismonitor.blogspot.com/2007/02/who-should-be-our-next-president.html

[Smokin' Joe]

you have the choice Hillary vs. Rudy

There is a lot of bad road between Feb '07 and November '08.

It ain't over 'till it's over.

But for those who really prefer to vote against the murder of babies, neither is an acceptable choice.

For those of us who believe in our right to own 'ugly' guns, neither is an acceptable choice.

For those of us who believe that our borders need to be secured, again, neither is an acceptable choice.

I won't bother to use up the bandwith to retrace the myriad reasons why I believe that nominating Rudy is the best way to guarantee a Democrat in the White House, but those certainly are in the top 5 among a number of folks, myself included.

On the issues, I will vote my concience, not the party line. I am a conservative who has voted Republican because the Party generally has fielded candidates who are more closely aligned with my views on the issues. When there is no difference, when both candidates are in juxtaposition with my viewpoint, I will vote for neither as both are unsuitable. At least when I meet my maker I will not have voted to continue the incredible slaughter of innocents which has been perpetrated since Roe.

It does seem to me, though, that whomever is nominated by the Republicans, if running against Hillary, will have a substantial following of anti-Hillary votes, so why not nominate a conservative?

If part of the base will not vote for a liberal Republican candidate, why not nominate someone palatable to the conservatives?

The lesson of 2006 is there for those who will see it. The conservatives defeated were heavily targeted by the Dems and abandoned by the Republicans: they got beat (Santorum, et al). The remainder were 'moderates' beaten by blue dog dems who ran to the right of them on the issues.

[FreePoster]

So again: you have the choice Hillary vs. Rudy.

Why are Giuliani supporters only interested in pitting him against Hillary? Come on, most Republicans will vote for a stray dog with rabies (with an R after its name) rather than vote for Hillary.

And I don't agree that he would be a strong candidate for the general election. His liberal views would doom him in many states that have to be red.