[stockstrader]

Mia,

Once again, please remove me from your ping list--as I find your outrage at Slick and his wife inconsistent, compomised and very selective--at best (being generous here).

I share your disgust about the damage that Slick and his wife have done to this country. If you knew me personally, you would have a really hard time finding anyone that despised Slick more than I did. Same for his lovely wife.

Having said that, I find your willingness to support for President the most vocal liberal, Clinton-APOLOGIST totally inconsistent with your anti-Clinton postings for the last few years. I would use the term 'hypocrisy', but that probably is a bit too strong. Maybe, maybe not--but I won't use it again.

Don't you see the pathetic irony and INCONSISTENCY in your supporting a Clinton-apologist for President?

At the risk of repeating myself here, let's look at Guiliani's public comments (paraphrasing).

(1) Shortly before his 'last-minute' endorsement of Bob Dole in the 1996 presidential election, [Giuliani] told the Post's Jack Newfield that "most of Clinton's policies are very similar to most of mine." No surprise here--as they are both liberals. I'm sure that played really well at the Kos, DU, the DNC, etc.

(2) The Daily News quoted [Giuliani] as saying that March: "Whether you talk about President Clinton, Senator Dole.... The country would be in very good hands in the hands of any of that group." OH REALLY???? I won't even go there.

(3) Combine those two comments with Guiliani's OUTRAGEOUS defense of Slick in the WOT after the Chris Wallace meltdown interview, "I don't blame Clinton. He did all that he could do"! This is the most incredibly OUTRAGEOUS of all his comments!! How could he even say that with a straight (no pun intended) face?

Outrageous, absolutely outrageous. If he really said that (which he did)--why would we expect him to be any stronger in the WOT. I won't 'beat this dead horse' anymore--as I think I covered his DEFENSE OF SLICK adequately the last time I addressed this issue with you.

I hope that someone in the press asks Rudy who he voted for in '92 and '96.

Let me sum up my comments to you with this one statement. I could understand your willingness to support Rudy AFTER the primaries (if, in fact, he is nominated), but your willingness to support him BEFORE the primaries have even begun--totally negates much of the outrage that you have posted about Slick and his supporters in the last few years. The operative word here is "BEFORE". A few words come to mind there, pathetic irony, inconsistency, compromised principles, selective outrage,,,,ok, I won't mention the other. When it comes to your postings about Slick's sycophants and supporters, the term 'double standard' also comes to mind.

You don't need to respond with some 'tortured explanation' of how you feel that Rudy is electable, and Hillary must be stopped, or something along those lines--yada, yada, yada. You could have made the case for him against Hillary AFTER the primaries--not before. Please don't waste your time now.

For the last time, please remove me from your ping list.

[Mia T]

I am so sorry, stockstrader.

With all the back and forth we had the other day, I completely forgot to remove you from my ping list. Will do that right now (and will leave my 'why Rudy?' response to my next post, thereby sparing you any additional angst arising out of the supposed cognitive dissonance).

[Mia T]

Check out what the wonderful conservative warrior, R. Emmett Tyrrell has to say.

I hope and pray that Tyrrell is right, that all factions will come to their senses and unite in the end, around Rudy [or, I would add, whichever candidate gets the nod].

The 'logic' of those refusing to vote for Rudy:

Rudy is a too 'liberal' 'New Yorker' so they will place their de facto vote for missus clinton, a Stalinist New Yorker, albeit fake, (fake New Yorker, not fake Stalinist), who

• as one-half of the 'twofer,' is the proximate cause of 9/11,
  
• is an abuser of women in her own right,
  
• is avidly pro-abortion,
  
• would nominate justices in the mold of Ruth Bader Ginsburg,
  
• would resume clinton sale of our nuclear secrets and mineral rights to the enemy,
  
• would sic the IRS and the clinton 'secret police' on all opponents and critics,
  
• would nationalize healthcare,
  
• would decimate the military,
  
• would reinstitute the clinton policy of ignoring of terrorism,
  
• would raise taxes...
  
• even as she and her rapist husband rake in millions in quid pro quos for their slush fund foundation,
  
• would confiscate profits, end capitalism, if she could, etc., etc.
  

It does the conservative cause no good to become petulant and self-destructive.

Do conservatives really want

• a Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court instead of an Alito, Roberts or Scalia?
  
• marginalization, if not worse, of their religious beliefs?
  
• a return to the amorality, immorality and corruption of the clinton years?
  
• and G-d knows what depth of failure in the War on Terror?

I find it hard to believe that those people aren't able to discern the difference between Giuliani and clinton. Frankly, if true, it is frightening.

I am advocating for Giuliani not because of his ideology. I am advocating for him because I believe he possesses the qualities that this country desperately needs in these perilous times... and because I believe he, unlike all the others, will win.

The other night, I heard a man who is not perfect, but a man of rare intelligence, humility, warmth, competence, strength and leadership.

We will be fortunate, indeed, and our babies, born and unborn, living and not yet imagined, will be infinitely safer, if he is our next president.