Will You Vote For Him: Giuliani?

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

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.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

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.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

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!!

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

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

LOL...no worries!

[ELA]

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

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by ELA

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!!

[ELA]

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

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

He is tough and honest.

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.

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

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.

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.