Because we're stuck within a two party system and can't seem to pull out of it... YET. If it boils down to Rudy vs. Hillary, Rudy will end up getting my vote. A vote for a third party would be a vote for Hillary and that's something I simply won't allow myself to do.
It's really a shame, but that's what it amounts to for many of us. The choices simply aren't there.
Edit:
I've seen many Democrats admit that they'd vote for Hillary before they'd vote for a Republican even though they don't like her. That says a lot for that party too... Doesn't it? And the fact that SHE is even considered to be a serious contender is troublesome as well.
2007-10-24 08:26:27
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
7⤊
2⤋
Whoa, what do you mean don't use something he's done in the past? It is impossible to know what he will do in the future, the only clues lie in the candidate's past. The Past is or should be the very most important thing in considering a candidate.
Rudy was the chief executive of a city bigger than some states and he did the job very well.
What has Hillary done to deserve to be elected President? She was the Counsel for the White Water real estate development which defrauded a bunch of people. She claims that she didn't know anything about the fraud, but she was their LAWYER. In any case, if she did know something then she should not be elected because she is a crook. If she didn't know anything about it, then she should not be elected because she is an incompetent Lawyer.
Everything she has ever done has been tied to the fact that she married Bill Clinton, period.
What kind of wife puts up with her husband being a rapist, molester, and sexual harasser? Not to even mention being a pot smoking philander?
2007-10-24 09:21:53
·
answer #2
·
answered by plezurgui 6
·
3⤊
0⤋
I'm definitely voting for Rudy because:
I lived in NYC when he became Mayor and literally saw how quickly the City changed for the better.
Running NYC is like running a small version of the world. (soooo many cultures, issues, economics...etc).
His choices in staff were AMAZING! I truly believe he will put the same passion he had in fixing NYC (which was a disaster when Dinkins was there) into making this Country a better place for all of us.
He also had a way of just shooting from the hip and not sugar coating (not a fan of political correctness) that irritated others of both parties. They eventually appreciated the honesty and all worked so well together to get things accomplished.
In his current campaign he doesn't have his "people" doing everything, he is very much involved, treats everyone with respect, and tries to converse or shake hands with every volunteer.
Rudy truly and genuinely loves the people of this Country.
LOL...This was not paid for by the Rudy Giuliani campaign. :)
2007-10-25 10:50:11
·
answer #3
·
answered by DesignDiva1 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
I won't vote for him in the primary, but I'd vote for him over any democrat if he gets the nomination.
Reasons I wouldn't vote for him in the primary: He ran a sanctuary city, so I don't believe his rhetoric that he'll be strong on illegal immigration. He's against a line item veto for the president, I think this is the best remedy to get out of control congressional spending under control. Not convinced on how he claims he's very conservative when it comes to taxes. He's pro gun control, even though he claims he just did it to clean up NYC, I don't buy that. He also claims he will appoint constructionist judges, yet never did in NYC. Why believe him now. He's just to much of a liberal republican for me. I don't want a moderate republican president, I want a solid conservative president!
Even though his campaign seems to have stalled a bit since entering, I'm still pulling for Fred Thompson. He is the most conservative candidate with a shot at beating the democratic candidate.
2007-10-24 09:02:00
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
The real debates have yet to begin. Once each party elects its nominee then Each party will have to support there nominated candidate. There is no or little common sense coming out of the democratic party and they are trying to play the moderate card as they did when they fooled our electorate into taking over both houses. If we have any chance in steering this nation in the right direction it will lye with the republicans. But we the nation must hold there feet to the fire and demand a tough stand on those issues that are critical to the survival of this nation as we know it. Any vote for a party or candidate out side the nominated candidates will result in a democratic socialist party white house as we saw happen with ross perote supporters who helped get bill clinton elected with there ignorant views on the results of "making a statement with my vote" If you are conservative or moderate than you must stick with the republican party until something better happens or else you will see the biggest government take over of this nation and its people since WWll. Without a world war.
2007-10-24 08:43:30
·
answer #5
·
answered by fraz 4
·
3⤊
0⤋
i'm a Democrat and lived in NYC in the direction of the right of Rudy's second time period as mayor. in the previous human beings go with to vote for him, or everybody for that matter, they might want to understand the position he stands on topics. maximum folk who see him understand him for in simple terms 2 issues, the shrink in crime in NYC and how he dealt with 9/11. i will say this about Guliani. As a Democrat he's both my well-known candidate and the scariest candidate contained in the Republican container. He has the great danger at prevailing a familiar election of any Republican, and, oddly, he's the Republican i ought to least techniques prevailing. he's a in a position manager, I percentage countless his social perspectives, he's a Yankee fan and that i chanced on his demeanor comforting after 9/11. there change right into a substantive shrink in crime the following throughout his words as mayor, although the credit for it really is not any longer totally his (Police Commissioner bill Bratton benefits some credit besides... and that i receives killed for this yet so does bill Clinton. definite, crime went down everywhere contained in the rustic in the course of the 90s. It in simple terms went down swifter the following). He appointed sturdy judges even as he change into the following, he has a humorousness, all in all he's a sturdy lengthy island city Republican. We strengthen 'em diverse the following. i do not pay interest to the own lives of applicants, so the three better halves and the affair don't worry me. he's in no way campaigned or been a staunch supporter of "relations values" so there is not any hypocrisy there. If Rudy were given the nomination, i ought to guage balloting for him counting on who the Democrats nominated. There are 3 or 4 Democrats i ought to take over Giuliani without questioning, after that i ought to ought to furnish it some theory.
2016-10-22 22:50:40
·
answer #6
·
answered by kelln 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
While I intend to vote for Stephen Colbert, (actually I am a Dem) but consider. If Repubs do not vote for their candidate, then they risk Democratic coattails pulling in more votes to increase the Dems control of the House and Senate. You may find some Republicans that say they will vote for the other candidates, just not Giuliani. Fact is, that makes for that person an off year election, and that will lower voter turnout for your party.
2007-10-24 09:06:34
·
answer #7
·
answered by Songbyrd JPA ✡ 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
For me it is the way he stepped up on 9/11. He was there leading, he was almost buried alive but escaped. When our national leaders where in hiding, Rudy was at ground zero at the mobile command center making things happen. I can look past many of the things I do not agree with him on. I also feel we need someone that is more open to change. I have not been happy with Bush's unwillingness to look to new ideals, or question people on his cabinet, or fire the mess ups.
2007-10-24 13:07:36
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Just for starters, Rudy Guilliani wanting to decrease the "need" for abortions and take care of the live children we have in foster care by increasing adoptions is MORE pro-life than any so called "Pro-Lifers". It is sad for our children that they are only looking at one part of the problem, think about it; pro-lifers are actually keeping abortion as a solution to a problem. Like I said: Just for starters….
2007-10-24 09:08:39
·
answer #9
·
answered by pacer 5
·
2⤊
1⤋
I'm not a Republican, but I like Rudy. I agree with most of his takes on the issues of the day.
2007-10-24 08:55:07
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
0⤋