>He improved your rabbit warren. That does not a statesman make.
If you'd like a statesman, vote for one. I want a President capable of leading, preferably one with a record of accomplishment commensurate with the demands of the job. As I previously indicated, if you have a superior candidate in mind, I am willing to consider alternatives. Just because you think I'm a rah-rah supporter doesn't make it so. My posts are mostly based on my desire to respond to distortions & outright untruths, not to mention wildly inappropriate cliches, lodged at this potential candidate, apparently without regard towards his record of accomplishment.
>In fact, most people would be hard-pressed to be as criminally inept as your average NYC government official, so saying he's better than Dinkins is surely damning him with faint praise.
Yeah, it's not like this town ever saw the likes of Theodore Roosevelt, Al Smith, or Robert Moses...or that LaGuardia fella, either. Hey, it's not like Koch was any better than Jimmy Walker, now, was it.
>>"I guess mentioning the name of a candidate who represented the Conservative Party in NYC is means for another non-NYer to lodge the charge that us NYers are oh-so NY-centric."
>I should think that's obvious by now.
You're beginning to remind me of the poster who opined that any Northeasterner calling themselves a Conservative was in fact a quasi-Marxist, like, oh, you know, Buckley, hell, even Coulter. I don't know what it is with you folks, but I find this similar sort of attitude you're espousing to be rather unworthy of my time. I simply find it unfortunate that the opposition to this candidate is as willing as it is to overlook his record. Boo hoo.
>>"Sorry you think it's some piddling nonentity of a task."
>Yes, it was.
This is difficult to take seriously. Any criticism you could lodge at a NYer for being NY-centric, well, I trust you realize that your credibility is nil, if you're willing to put forth such foolishness. Clearly your understanding of exactly what was involved is sorely lacking.
The disregard for the guy's record of accomplishments makes more sense now. You folks are so consumed with hatred for the guy's positions, that you denigrate accomplishments you are proving you know nothing of.
>>"Who's asking you to? "
>As I recall, you were.
You recall incorrectly; go back & cite the relevant portions of my posts to support this claim, if you would.
In the case that you can prove me wrong, I will not have a problem admitting so. However, I have been consistent in maintaining that if this candidate is not conservative enough for folks on this site, by all means, look elsewhere. That I have an open mind & would be more than willing to consider other candidates. And that the anti-Rudy gang is misguided and juvenile, if not downright ignorant. I'm not asking you to vote for anyone, and I don't believe I have. I just think it's a shame that there are no apparent arguments against him that I've seen in these threads that have anything to do with presenting any valid reason to disqualify his candidacy based on his record, rather than the quote-mining done to prove how liberal he is.
The liberal who oversees a 65% reduction in the murder rate is a liberal I'm willing to consider voting for. For those of you to whom I'm not conservative enough on that basis, my apologies. I have seen firsthand the results of Giuliani's REPUBLICAN policies put into effect here & how dramatic & positive they were. And that's where my primary focus will lie in my 'unprincipled' approach towards determining who I feel is the more qualified candidate.