His stance on gun rights disqualifies him from being a libertarian. But the truth is, if he is our candidate in 2008 we HAVE to vote for him because the alternative will be so much worse.
Good catch on the gun issue. And I agree about supporting him vs. whatever Dem ends up in the race. I'm thinking it'll be Richardson when the dust settles from Hillary's run. Problem is, I don't think we can win with a candidate like Giuliani who is simultaneously "liberal light" and "conservative light." We're going to need someone who stands in sharp contrast on the issues and can articulate the differences as well as the consequences of the choice. Running a "moderate" is an attempt to sway voters from the left by playing nice, and that's proving increasingly hard to do. Being nice to their Dem counterparts during the years of Republican majority just left them looking like incompetents, and left them with no ammo to repel the Dem takeover last November.
People have a right to vote form whom that wish without threats and intimidation. Are do you not believe that?
Can't be repeated enough!
.
The alternative, if it be Mrs. Clinton, will at least get us a Republican House in 2010, a very conservative house if Gingrich is involved and if the party actually wants a Republican house.
But the truth is, if he is our candidate in 2008 we HAVE to vote for him because the alternative will be so much worse.
That makes me laugh! No we don't "have" to vote for him. That's the beauty of living in a free society, I get to vote for someone else or no one else. My choice!
I'm sincerely wondering whether a liberal (PIAPS) who will galvanize and focus a united, 24/7, out-for-blood opposition party will really be worse than a liberal (Rudy) who will get an uneasy pass from both parties.