McCain is too unstable, and Romney is a religious extremist. Giuliani did an excellent job demonstrating his leadership abilities after 9/11 (unlike Billary, who did and said nothing), and I think that he might be the best choice for the Republican nomination.
2007-10-07 14:55:01 · 15 answers · asked by Michael F 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
Giuliani is too vacillate regarding the 2nd amendment...Fred Thompson will likely be my choice, for what it's worth...
2007-10-07 15:00:37 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 8⤊ 1⤋
Ron Paul stands out as the excellent selection ever, not Rudy Giuliani. Rudy Giuliani does not understand that the rustic construction united statesa. has been doing over the final some years is extremely detrimental, wasteful, creates greater enemies (it fairly is why there grew to become into worldwide conflict I - too many ecu worldwide places have been usa construction), and is an notably grasping pass (usa construction finally provides greater money to firms). Rudy Giuliani would provide greater ability to firms (e.g. emminent area) and would strengthen the form of unlawful immigrants (a highway is going to be equipped from Mexico by way of Texas and something of united statesa. and you do not want something to get around the line - Rudy Giuliani does not end that, while Ron Paul would). Ron Paul is easily studied and is acquainted with the areas the place government spends too lots, while Rudy Giuliani is obviously not. Ron Paul is likewise the only nominee to handle the $9 trillion debt united statesa. faces and a great form of economists help his nomination, because of the fact he's the only nominee who would desire to efficiently help business enterprise. Rudy Giuliani would be a detrimental option to bypass against Hillary Clinton - he's a neo-conservative like George Bush and the only reason she is great-unfold is using the fact a great form of people hate neo-conservatives and their usa construction. wager what? Ron Paul would end the conflict in Iraq, end usa construction, and, if he have been the nominee, would draw those votes removed from Hillary Clinton. I recommend, no person likes her - the clarification they want her to win is using the fact people would be choosing the lesser of two evils. Ron Paul is the only guy or woman who has of project of going against her! So, Rudy Giuliani would be a bad nominee - Ron Paul would be great!
2016-10-21 09:47:44 · answer #2 · answered by borgmeyer 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ron Paul would be the greatest choice ever, not Rudy Giuliani. Rudy Giuliani does not realize that the nation building America has been doing over the past many years is very destructive, wasteful, creates more enemies (which is why there was World War I - too many European countries were nation building), and is a very greedy move (nation building ultimately gives more money to corporations). Rudy Giuliani would give more power to corporations (e.g. emminent domain) and would increase the number of illegal immigrants (a highway is going to be built from Mexico through Texas and the rest of the United States and you don't need anything to get across the highway - Rudy Giuliani would not stop that, whereas Ron Paul would). Ron Paul is well studied and knows the areas where government spends too much, whereas Rudy Giuliani is obviously not. Ron Paul is also the only nominee to address the $9 trillion debt America faces and many economists support his nomination, because he is the only nominee who could successfully help business. Rudy Giuliani would be a poor choice to go against Hillary Clinton - he is a neo-conservative like George Bush and the only reason why she is popular is because a lot of people hate neo-conservatives and their nation building. Guess what? Ron Paul would end the war in Iraq, stop nation building, and, if he were the nominee, would draw those votes away from Hillary Clinton. I mean, no one likes her - the reason they want her to win is because people would be picking the lesser of two evils. Ron Paul is the only one who has a chance of going against her! So, Rudy Giuliani would be a terrible nominee - Ron Paul would be great!
2007-10-07 15:23:20 · answer #3 · answered by lama-assassinator3240 2 · 6⤊ 1⤋
The religious base hates Guliani. They only like him in the sense that they think he matches well against Hillary... the lesser of two evils. He's a fear-monger, a politician through and through, and rides the 9/11 wave for all it's worth. I don't like him. At all. He's first on my list of people I would not vote for, right above Hillary.
In terms of his 9/11 performance, you're not hearing much now, but I don't think the Dems fear that very much. He had a lot of shortcomings before and after the attack that, for now, people have been very silent about. If he's the nominee, the stops will be pulled out.
He ignored warnings to move the emergency response center AFTER the first attack on WTC, failed to coordinate first responders and set up solid communication between organizations, and largely left the issue of terrorism unaddressed. After the 9/11 attack, his image stood out, and THAT is what he is clinging to. However, even afterwards, some of the medical issues and responses to the attack leave plenty of room for more criticism.
His strength could prove to be a weakness in this arena. And that would be very, very bad for his campaign, since that's basically all he's got.
I think '00 McCain would have been the best nominee. '08 McCain has lost all of his appeal and his credibility as a straight-talker. Thompson is just someone people *wish* was Reagan, Huckabee is the best cultural conservative but they are not rallying behind him, and Romney (contrary to what Republicans say) has higher negatives than Hillary. Ron Paul is the only person with a very different message right now -- the only one I like, and of course he's the Kucinich of the Republican field.
It's a very, very weak field of candidates.
2007-10-07 15:12:59 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Republicans have not many choices. Their fate is sealed with the miserably failed Iraq war and the timid surrender of the entire party to stop it happening. How important was Rudy Giuliani in the Republican hierarchy earlier, and how long since he has been entertaining his wish to contest for US President and what if any he has done / achieved to prove his organizational qualities, leadership, integrity and commitment towards the nation. Probably he is tall among the dwarfed Republican party which is licking its wounds but not tall enough to be the President.
2007-10-07 15:15:53 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Ron Paul is the best and obvious choice for the Republican ticket.
Its funny you mention Guiliani in that sense Goldenrae, considering one of the best presidents we ever had "Ronald Wilson Reagan", was also a democrat as well when he first started out. Hmm, imagine that. But the facts remain that RUDY is not fit to be the next president. No offense Mr. Guiliani, but i will not give you my vote.
Ron Paul 2008.
2007-10-07 15:33:48 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
No. Romney is better. But Guiliani would be a strong leader if he were nominated.
Quite frankly any of the Republican candidates, excluding Paul, would be excellent choices for President.
2007-10-08 00:14:50 · answer #7 · answered by Avatar_defender_of_the_light 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Rudy is not who or what you seem to think he is -- his managerial skills are dubious he has poor judgment and shady connections
not mention he likes to dress up in ladies clothes
You are way off base as far as Hillary and 9/11 are concerned
2007-10-07 15:19:49 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Ironic that Giuliani is really only a Republican because it is more politically adventageous. He was originally a Democrat and even ran on the liberal ticket during his mayoral campaigns.
2007-10-07 14:59:06 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
No. My vote is for Ron Paul.
2007-10-07 16:00:01 · answer #10 · answered by just me 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋