I would consider the Second Amendment my first and foremost issue, along with rule-of-law. Rudy's lawsuit showed he has no respect for either.
I recognize full well that I can't expect everything I'd like from a candidate. But I see no reason to support a candidate who goes so strongly against my most important beliefs.
2) How long do you think Giuliani would've survived in NYC politics if he mirrored your positions on every issue? He'd be muttering to himself with an old copy of "Soldier of Fortune" in a Bronx loft by now. That's not a knock on you. It's a knock on NYC politics, but if you disqualify Giuliani because of it, you're essentially ruling out ALL experienced executives from ALL urban areas as leaders. That is NOT a prescription for success.
Who forced Rudy to file the lawsuit, and if he felt he was forced into it, why has he not since apologized?
If Rudy had been absolutely 100% anti-gun, how would his actions have differed from those he actually took?
> But I see no reason to support a candidate who goes so
> strongly against my most important beliefs.
We're speaking at cross purposes here.
I don't have any illusions about convincing single issue pro-gun, or single issue pro-life, or single issue pro-family voters that Rudy is "their guy".
He's not, quite simply. And if they can find a candidate to support who better reflects their values, by all means, support him or her.
My point is rather that the internecine savaging (of Giuliani or any other candidate) only serves whoever the dems put up. It serves no constructive purpose whatsoever. That was the reasoning behind Reagan's 11th commandment.