Will You Vote For Him: Giuliani?
 

I'm as independent as they come. Voted for Nader in the last two elections and would do it again. I don't like either party and simply want the best candidate. Being a tri-state person, I had enough of a first hand look at Rudy to know he is who I want as the next president. I think that southern president after southern president is hurting this country. The electoral college system was made to even the playing field for smaller states, but has essentially morphed into a southern domination of election candidates. Well its time to take one back. His popularity is actually quite high in the south. He is take no prisoners and tough, and not your typical WASP candidate. A big supporter. Depending on how the primaries are taking shape I will donate to his campaign and consider working on it as well.

As it stands now, I would vote Rudy above any other candidate.

That a boy Timmy! And you will be needed in as a California voter.

Right now, he's 4th on my list...then again, those are the only 4 I could possibly vote for and if none of the other 3 get nominated...

Somer, give me your top 3.

Probably pretty well known by now but:
1) Hillary
2) Condy
3) Obama

too soon to tell on any candidate. not so sure how popular rudy will be in the south when his gun control voting record is discussed. that and the fact he is pro-choice doesn't really bode well for him getting the republican nomination...
as for hillary, no doubt she raised eyebrows among businessmen when she said we needed to take exxons profits and use them to find new sources of fuel. we don't take a companys' money in this country! no doubt she will say she 'mis-spoke'...she has a lot of baggage, including her failed health care plan back when she was part of the buy one get one free team.
as for obama, he's an unknown.

should be an interesting, and LONG, campaign. i certainly haven't settled on anyone yet, and won't really until the noms are named-why pull for someone if they're not going to be one of the big two come election time?

here's hoping tho that we get two good candidates, rather than dumb and dumber. or maybe dumber and dumber.

just heard on the news that the australian PM, john howard i believe, said a vote for obama is a vote for terrorists. gimme a break!!! how so i wonder?
obama fired back by saying perhaps australia should commit 20k more troops to the surge, basically put your money where your mouth is (wonder what size foot howard can fit in his mouth?).

Giuliani would sell out his mother.

Watching him sliding to the right on abortion the past couple weeks has been very amusing. If, by some travesty, he gets the nom, he'll slide back to the middle.

People give him FAR too much credit for the 9/11 response in NYC. Say anything you want about NYers but there is no way the police and fire men and women could have done a better job. And it has nothing to do with Rudy.

Police and fire in NYC have a very long tradition going back to the original gang days. There is NO way they would allow their city to deteriorate into chaos as happened in New Orleans.

Just my opinion but I donut think the guy is electable.

A bit harsh. We aren't electing the pope here. I can't stand it when people try to take credit away from Guiliani for 9-11. It can't be done in my opinion. He did everything in more during that time period, to say it would've been the same with another mayor in there isn't an argument. He was there! So he deserves credit.

But I'm not looking to elect him because of 9-11 alone, more a governing approach that I agree with. He is tough and honest.

I agree...in this culture, we build people up so we can tear them down. Anybody with a history of public service will have some warts...in fact, if you look closely at the pope...well, never mind. Rudy, as I said before, is one of four that I could vote for, if none of those are nominated, I'll look for a third (or 4th/5th etc) party candidate to vote for. My list of "absolutely no way" candidates grows daily...original members being Algore, Kerry, McCain, Edwards and a few other assorted right-wing types.

please make sure huckabee is on that ANW list as well!!

LOL...no worries!

Tough, yes. Honest, not on your life. I loved the moment at the RNC when he said as soon as he heard the towers were hit the first thing he said was, "Thank God George Bush is our President." I mean, come on. Me, I would imagine my first words would be, "Oh ****" or "What the f*ck happened?" or something like that. And I'm willing to guess that's what his first words actually were, too.

Seven WTC collapsed because Giuliani had insisted on storing the city's emergency fuel there. Completely against city regulations, but he didn't care; he demanded it and got it and the building went boom on 9/11 as a result. Also cut off an art museum's funding (illegally) because he didn't understand one of the pieces and got offended. The courts had to order him to restore the funding. And tried to use 9/11 to illegally extend his term as mayor. Oh, and demanded control of funds donated for 9/11 and put several of his buddies in six-figure salaried positions to "manage" the money. This is the guy you want in the White House? Who do you think he'll pick as Secretary of the Interior? Bernie Kerik?

The man's own son won't speak to him.

I normally do not take part in political or religious discussions, but this one seems safe enough. At least I hope so, LOL.

I think when you look at the political landscape globally, Rudy presents an interesting proposition. He has the appeal, and he stepped up during this nation's most difficult time in recent years. He brought forth the leadership needed and addded stability to a very tough situation. That appeals to people. That makes people feel that he can lead. Are people going to look at the Roman Catholic aspect? Maybe. I've read it. Personally, I don't care. Does that trickle into one's views and platforms on tough, today issues? I guess so. I've always been a fan of Rudy's, and personally, I would probably support anyone, merely by default, against Hillary Clinton.

Now, with regard to Hillary Clinton, the real strategic issues have not yet been addressed. The party needs to decide if she is 'the one' so to speak. The party needs to decide if the American public will make her 'the one'. What that means, and I think the American public also needs to look at this as well, is that Hillary's overall 'electibility' needs to be addressed.

This is one of the most critical factors that a party looks at -- over and above what polls may say. Polls tend not to assess electibility and what it means, offers, detracts from, etc. the party and the nation.

So, what does this mean? Here is my take -- if you look at recent elections and how the Democrats operate, they tend to look at a candidate, their electibility and what it can and cannot mean to the party. They tend to lean towards a center-oriented candidate who can play the 'role model' role for the party and the nation. In addition, if that person is a Southerner, who they think Republicans could possibly vote for, then that would be ideal. Interestingly enough, the Democratic party seems to be willing to overlook the charismatic and dynamic politician that should lead the party. We've seen that. Think about the some of the recent candidates.

The Democratic party has always seemed to put forth a candidate that they think Republicans might vote for. This is very different than the Republican methodology.

With Hillary, the public thinks this and she is different. So, the polls say so. That is not enough -- not nearly. She has several things in favor -- she is named Clinton, she is a woman, she votes center, and has liberal appeal. However, she has alienated many major powers in the party.

There is a question as to whether or not she has, or can win them back, and more importantly, whether or not she is a true 'team' and 'party' player.

The people who tell me that women will vote for Hillary Clinton just because she is a woman, IMHO are not only naive, but are foolish as well. I know plenty of women, intelligent women, who are truly insulted by this. Will the conservative women vote for her? How about the religious ones?

More importantly, I think there is a real question that strategists need to answer -- is she well liked personally? That means something. They don't have to love you, but if they dislike you personally, any political strategist will tell you what grows from there.

Eric

A thoughtful response with good points...I take a simple approach here...who do I like and have faith in as a person? While my mind is always open to new information, I think my "top 4" will remain unchanged and I will vote for one of those if possible. As an independent voter who could care less about the fate of either party, I focus strictly on the person...so while I agree with much of your analysis, it really doesn't concern me as I will vote for the candidate that I feel is the best...not the most electable. Still...good stuff!!

While I conceptually agree with the "vote for the person" methodology, unforutantely, the concept is flawed. I've often found that on a local level, for example, a municipality or town level, the "vote for the person" works. Party politics and platforms are sometimes not the major ingredient. Now I know that wouldn't fly in a major city, but in a small town I've seen it.

When I was younger and gorwing up in Central NJ, the mayor of our town won 3 or 4 successive elections -- as a Republican, a Democrat, and an Independent (he may have won a 4th with some other party affiliation -- I just don't remember). On a national scale, the flaws are inherent.

I am certainly not familiar enough with the meat around the bone of all the candidates, however, if I was going to vote Democrat, my initial knee-jerk reaction is that Rudy would be first, but I am so far very impressed with Obama. I want to see more -- much more.

Eric

Rudy is a Republican.

Nicole, yes the Bush comment turns your stomach but its kind of normal political pandering at a convention, doesn't make it right, but don't judge him just based on that. Look Kerik is a slimy dude for sure, but he has been distanced from Guiliani for a few years now and wouldn't be serving in the administration. They all have warts. I can't vote for Hillary. I could vote for McCain if it was the "old" McCain who wasn't sitting on Bush's lap but he's different now.

Toss Edwards in there and you've got my list too.

that catholic hating bigot? come on....LOL

Brian,
For some reason, Edwards bothers me...can't quite put my finger on it but it's a gut thing...I'll pass on him.

OK lets cut to the chase I have a question and I don't think there is a right answer nor a wrong answer. Do you think that the country is ready for either a non-white or a women to be president??? it is a simple question and alot will say it doesnt matter as long as she/he is a good politicain. But come on folks it does matter there are still enough people out there that dont think we are ready for either, and I won't lie I don't care what women it is I will not vote for a women for the president of the untied states call me what you will I just won't, as for a non-white I will reserve the right to check him out and make a decision, But I will say I think as a people we might be ready for a women more so then a Black. Just my thoughts. I am sure I will get bashed for the women remark but oh well at least it will spark a debate.

LMAO! What a mistake that is. Thank you for pointing it out, and with class. I actually have no idea what I was typing, LOL.

Eric

I'm not into bashing people for opinions I don't agree with. That's fine if that's what you think. Do I think America is ready for it? No, but personally I am ready for it. With the right candidate, i.e. a woman who is not Hillary and a black candidate with more experience than Obama.

But there are way too many people who won't elect a black candidate and a woman who won't attract female voters isn't winning either.

If we wait for "America to be ready", we will wait forever...change is never comfortable and sometimes it comes at great expense. Kennedy "couldn't win" because he was Catholic (I'm old enough to remember all the comments about the pope moving to the White House)...but he did win! If you allow folks to sit back in their comfortable easy chairs and decide they are "ready" for change, it won't happen...but make them take chance, present them with an opportunity and sometimes...folks will surprise you! Gandhi and King succeeded because they appealed to people's conscience and "inner goodness"...present people with a choice and educate them on the importance of eliminating bigotry and who knows? Some folks will never vote for a woman or a black...hopefully they are in the minority...it's way past time we find out!

Somer, I am sorry but there are quite a few parts of the country that are far from open-minded. In fact the scary thing is those are the same parts that like to see themselves are righteous and religious.

I won't bash you but we did come thisclose to having a Jewish Vice President in 2000. A lot of people would say that would never happen either. It almost did.

And don't think that that didn't cost the democrats the election, b/c it probably did. Again, don't underestimate the public.

I think Al Gore still has my social security in his lock box......whatever that meant.

I see privitization also has come up...oh wait it hasn't. That's what is a joke about these campaigns, In 2K SS was probably the most important issue to me.....now it seems minor. Empty promises to get your vote.

I thought Katherine Harris cost the Dems the election. Wait, that was 2004.

That's the problem...politicians underestimate the public! I agree that bigotry and racism still exist...and they permeate large segments of the population. The south is an easy target...but here in central Pa we still have a large KKK representation and frankly, subtle racism/sexism exists everywhere. The only way to fight it is to bring it into the light...and you don't do that by being too cowardly as a political party to challenge the sterotypes...nominate a black and/or woman candidate and give the public the opportunity to surprise those who say it can't be done!

Ep,
You seem serious, but I have doubts.
"a women", "what women it is", "I will not vote for a women for president".
"a Black"......hmmm
Maybe you need to go make another Geico commercial, and then talk to your
grammar teacher, or crawl back under your rock.

ps...Rudy doesn't get my vote. 'Nuf of the guy that put emergency services in a building that collapsed (WTC 7). Such vision!

On a related topic, will anyone here NOT vote for Obama based on the sole fact that he smokes a pack of cigarettes a day?

Just curious.

he quit smoking. up to a pack of nicorette gum a day.

incidentally, ben franklins son didn't talk to him either!

as for the 'i won't vote for a woman or a black' comments--glad to see you consider the candidate and what they have to say, rather than making a judgement on face value.:rolleyes:

S2S,
Too funny! The "anti-smoking vote"..LMFAO!
Consider this, if GDubs liver could hold up after all he put it through, Obama's lungs might. Just as long as he doesn't give the "pace-maker" vp a place on his ticket (ticker).

To me, parts of PA are the south Somer.

I'm wondering why anyone would even consider it???

Agreed, its funny I hear people bring up Guiliani's marriages, I don't care about that. Smoking is actually a worse example but to each his own. Doesn't impact my voting for him.