Replies

I have posted a lengthy background on Rudy's accomplishments and earlier positions several times on FR, and started to do so again, but that would be like talking past the anti-Rudy people. I cannot disagree with several of your points. We are both conservatives, but I am of the libertarian stripe, and don't have a problem with Rudy's positions on many of the issues articulated by this post. What I fail to see with many of the anti-Rudy comments is a more objective view of Rudy's accomplishments and positions. First, he has a good record cutting taxes and fiscal conservatism. Second, he has a good record regarding national security (I will address the immigration issue separately, while it does bear on security). Third, Rudy was elected in a very liberal city, and while having some liberal positions, I contend that some consideration must be given for the timing of some of the statements made by Rudy. In some cases, these statements were made 15-20 years ago. You need to consider the context in which those statements were made. Go back and look at statements made by Ronald Reagan in his life. You will find some that do not aling with how his Presidential policies.

Finally, Rudy's position on immigration and the 2nd Amendment are my main concerns in terms of my philosophy. As far as the 2nd Amendment, Rudy had made statements that indicate to me that he will not try to implement the kind of gun control that would concern me. I was against the Brady Bill, but frankly, Brady was not a big deal. Going beyond Brady would be. As for immigration, I will concede that Rudy would not be as aggressive as someone like Duncan Hunter. For that matter, I like Hunter and could support him. I will wait and see how the campaign moves. I like a Rudy/Hunter ticket. I have watched politics in the USA since Goldwater lost to LBJ. I have been disappointed more than you know. Even Ronald Reagan wasn't perfect. George W less so, but both have my support, since I realize that there is no perfect candidate. Rudy may not be a candidate for all conservatives, but if he wins the nomination, I sincerely hope conservative weight the results of the election of either Hildebeast, Obama or Edwards.

"but if he wins the nomination, I sincerely hope conservative weight the results of the election of either Hildebeast, Obama or Edwards."

REPLY:

There are a few on these threads who are playing the immature game of it's my ball and if you don't play by my rules I am going to quit and take my ball home.

In my opinion anyone who helps any of the the three Dimocrat socialist stooges you mentioned above to get elected are nothing more than traitors to their party, America and to future generations.

I say to these spoiled anti-Rudy at any cost posters.

Want more socialism and government interference then vote Dimocrat or stay home and be a WHINNY BIG BABY and suck on your thumbs by not voting.

In my opinion three fourths of a loaf is better than no loaf at all.

Dimocrats under Hellary, Osama Obama and Breckgirl will imperil Americas future and you can bet your LIFE on that.

Very good post, George. I have to disagree with you on a number of points, though.

First, he has a good record cutting taxes and fiscal conservatism.

This is probably the one issue where he's on very solid ground.

Second, he has a good record regarding national security . . .

No, he doesn't (despite the endless rhetoric we've heard on this issue). Rudy Giuliani was mayor of New York City for eight years, and has been outside of government for the last five. He has no record at all on national security -- other than his bizarre recommendation of Bernard Kerik for Homeland Security chief.

Third, Rudy was elected in a very liberal city, and while having some liberal positions, I contend that some consideration must be given for the timing of some of the statements made by Rudy. In some cases, these statements were made 15-20 years ago. You need to consider the context in which those statements were made.

I might give an elected official some leeway on this, but remember something here: Rudy Giuliani was prohibited under New York City law from running for a third term as mayor in 2001, so he had absolutely no need to pander to liberal voters in New York City after he was re-elected in 1997. His post-1997 track record is enough to disqualify him from any consideration as a "conservative" candidate.