“In fact, evidenced by your post, I would suggest that you are exactly the opposite of intelligent, based on your inability to designate tax cuts, support for The War In Iraq, support for The War On Terror, support for Israel, opposition to universal health care, fiscal conservatism and promises to appoint constructionist judges as “good.””
The man cannot be trusted. Every point you make of the “good” of Rudy have been throughly sliced and diced by others here. He is bogus. I’m still affiliated with the military (reservist), and I don’t want this fool for C&C any more than I want Hillary. I equally distrust both to pursue this war against Islamic Radicals or any that would use “islam” as a rally against the United States. Also, his idea of a “strict constructionist” is Judge Ginsburg. Give me a break. No substantial difference exists between Guillani and Clinton. I won’t vote for either in a general election. If the Republican party wants me to support its candidate in the general election the candidate must clearly be to the right of center on abortion, homosexuality, and the 2nd Ammendment. Rudy fails on all three.
Giuliani supports the ban on partial birth abortions. He once stated that he wouldn't support such a ban (in 1999), but in May he stated that he does support it. Is he flipping like John Kerry? I don't judge that. All I know is that he has stated that he supports the ban.
Hillary has stated that she is against the ban. Hillary voted against the ban.
Rudy has stated that it would "be okay" if Roe vs. Wade were overturned by a judge. This means that Giuliani believes that leaving abortion to the states is a valid scenario. This is precisely what Pro-Lifers like myself have been hoping for for years. He does believe Roe should be determined in the courts, and that's disappointing...but it is a far cry from Hillary's "abortion at anytime anywhere" stance.
Your point is refuted. Hillary and Rudy do not espouse the same views on abortion. They are in fact very different.
Regarding terrorism, Giuliani has issued statements calling on Democrats to use the term "Islamic Terrorists" when refering to Islamic Terrorists. You also know that Giuliani refused a $10 million donation for disaster relief from Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal after the prince suggested U.S. policies in the Middle East contributed to the September 11 attacks. He has vocally and ubiquitously supported the Bush administration at every turn in The War In Iraq
Giuliani is as far to the right as any candidate on American foreign policy outside the Ron Paul/John Birch/Pat Buchanan wing.
Now listen carefully: Rudy is not the best candidate running. I disagree with the man more than I disagree with any other GOP candidate other than Paul (and Paul's stance on Iraq defines him as a member of the kook fringe). But, if he is elected, he will be beholden to his Party, just as Hillary would be beholden to hers.
Would you rather have a President beholden to the party intent on prosecuting a necessary war, securing the borders and protecting the 2nd Amendment, or a President beholden to Code Pink, The Daily Koz, CAIR and socialized medicine proponents like Michael Moore?
I think the choice between these two are obvious, and in a general election matchup between Rudy and Hillary there is no doubt who is the better candidate and who is more conservative.
Anyone claiming they're the same is blind...that being said, it's important to try to nominate a more conservative candidate than Giuliani in the primaries. He is not conservative enough for my tastes, but he is conservative enough to get my vote if he's running against HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON. For crying out loud.