Posted on 02/13/2007 1:59:22 PM PST by meg88
Rudy also took guns away from long-term NYC permit holders.
I realize that, by making such a nonsensical statement, that you are oblivious to the importance of guns for self-defense, and that you prefer to have the government protect you instead of doing anything to protect yourself as well.
But do realize that some of prefer to deter crime, not report it.
This is a completely absurd statement for him to make, in light of the fact that he was mayor of a city where about 99% of law-abiding citizens would be unable to carry a concealed weapon under "local licensing laws."
His track record of idiotic lawsuits against gun dealers in other states -- i.e., outside his jurisdiction --exposes this crap as nothing more than silly flip-flopping on his part.
Let's look at the great success in California electing Rino Arnie who promptly moved hard left instead of voting for a true conservative like Tom McClintok.
If Rudy is the best Republicans can do, they deserve to lose.
Giuliani brings with him undeniable support for the war on terror, which we need to win.
He also brings an excellent attitude on taxes - he faced up NYC unions, who if anything are tougher than Democrats.
And his record on cleaning up NYC is unsurpassed.
He's the kind of tough, principled leader who would make a great President.
From a practical viewpoint, I doubt that he will do much on abortion or gun control. These are important issues to Freepers and to their enemies on the left, but I don't consider them national issues that normally mesh with Presidential decisionmaking.
I think most of the viable candidates support some kind of amnesty/immigration reform for illegals. I do too, so I might not be the best person to talk about this topic to Free Republic's anti-illegal wing. Still, find someone who opposes illegals who is also electable. I think you'll have a tough time of it.
If Hillary's the nominee, yes, she can out-shrill him, but she'll find herself made very unlikable in the process. The likable person wins the election and that would be Rudy.
Obama's more interesting but it looks like he may be self-destructing as we speak; his conversations about his religious beliefs have been strange at best. If nothing else, I think he and Rudy come to this issue on roughly equal terms.
Rudy Giuliani would almost certainly carry New York state, which would be a huge handicap for the Democrats.
I can't help but notice that the other front-running candidates seem to have very similar problems to Rudy. Rommey's questionable on abortion and religious issues as well. And of course McCain is a maverick who votes with Democrats half the time.
Among that list of realistic candidates, I'd consider Rudy to be the best one.
Thoughts?
D
Running against a hypothetical opponent is no way to win an election.
Giving folks a reason to vote for the GOP nominee, as opposed to simply voting against the other candidate, will get you much better results.
How come NO ONE on this freakin' site can spell Giuliani?
Especially when it's right there in the article?
Reagan is dead. There are no Reagan's on the horizon. If we wait for one to appear, sadly, Hitlery or Obamanac will be in the white house.
Bump
Which RAT candidate will be better than Rudy?
Yeah, he was so serious about the war on terror that he pushed a corrupt crony for the most important anti-terror job in the country.
Excellent column.
Other than he is not a Black Muslim, what is the difference between Obama and Guiliani?
It won't be quits as funny if Rudy gets the nomination and a percentage of Conservatives stay home. There will be plenty of panic, though.
If they truly believed their own declarations that most conservatives will never vote for Giuliani, they wouldn't snipe so furiously on the Rudy threads. If Rudy were really the no-way-Jose candidate they claim he is, they'd yawn and pass on by. Yet somehow, they're drawn like moths to a candle. Why? Because Rudy is where all the political energy is.
I think the more important question is, what GOP candidate will be able to hold the party together and draw Reagan Dems back into the party with a pro-life and pro-gun platform?
quits = quite
Conservatives have lost a lot of traction, things have changed since 2004 election. The GOP is going for broader appeal this time. Conservatives could unite around some barely known candidate and lose, big time. I don't like it, but that's the way things are now.
I just heard him say that he was in agreement with concealed carry, in accordance with local licensing laws.
There's the rub. What were his idea of good local laws? And what about those gun manufacturing lawsuits? They would seem to put the lie to his recent statements.
We are opposed to Giuliani because we see the train wreck a-comin' if he is the nominee. He will not be able to unite the party with his far-left stance in the party, and he will not be able to make up the difference as a pro-war candidate amongst independents and Dems who are strongly anti-war the further left you go.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.