Replies

"...an aggressive stance against terrorists, and promises to name conservative judges to the court."

Stop right there. If these aren't your two top priorities, nos. 1 and 1A, then bash away.

If these indeed are your top priorities (in my case, something akin to taking my next breath) then the rest is inconsequential.

Favoring gun control while governing a city of 9+ million? Shocking? Face it, the average NYC resident doesn't know squat about guns; guns in the hands of non-law-enforcement individuals in a city like New York serves few purposes - principally murder, armed robbery and cop-killing.

Rudy cleaned up a cesspool he inherited from liberals - does that compute? He took liberal stances on some issues to get elected in a decidedly liberal city, yet he respects the Constitution and will appoint strict constructionist judges - does that give you a clue about how important an issue like "gun control" is to him?

If abortion and gun control were his hot-button issues, would he be promising to appoint conservative judges? Would a liberal end the welfare culture that permeated NYC, forcing people back to work and off the dole? Would he be locking up panhandlers, or would he, as a "liberal", be championing their right to "earn" a living from the sweat of YOUR brow?

Would a liberal have kicked Al Sharpton to the curb in the first week of his Administration? Would a liberal have tossed millions of bucks back in the face of an Arab prince? Would a liberal have physically removed scum like Yassar Arafat from a reception, branding him a murderer and humiliating him on an international stage?

RINO. I laugh at that. Who decided what makes a RINO a RINO? Perhaps the real "RINOS" are those that myopically latch onto social issues over which the President has little control, and ignore what Republicans should really stand for today; a tough, non-appeasement stance on Islamic extremists, belief in appointing strict, constructionist judges, and low taxes.

Rudy gets top grades on all three.

Listen, and I mean this politely:

Rudy Giuliani's idea of "Strict Constructionism" is RADICALLY different from our definition of strict Constructionism.

Let me break it down:

1.) Rudy calls himself a strict constructionist.

2.) Rudy has praised Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

3.) Rudy expressly believes that the Second Amendment COMPELS us to strictly regulate guns. He has stated that a "well-regulated militia" means strict gun regulation.

4.) He believes that there is a place for junk lawsuits against gun manufacturers in the law.

5.) He believes that Campaign Finance Reform is consistent with the First Amendment.

6.) He believes that Hate Crimes Legislation is consistent with the First Amendment.

7.) He has openly stated that he believes Roe vs. Wade is good law.

8.) He sees a place in law for the Practice of Partial Birth Abortion.

9.) He tried to get an extension as Mayor of NY, and even tried to have the law changed so that he could run again - a very Hugo Chavez-eques view of election laws.

10.) He sued the federal government over strict immigration laws, and acted in direct defiance of those laws to make NY an amnesty city.

11.) His record of appointing judges in NY is that of a far-leftist. He does not have total influence over all of the appointments; but it is entirely dishonest to say that it would have been impossible to get a single Conservative judge, or at least Consensus moderate judge, appointed in his entire tenure.

---His record, world view, legal view, and history all point to a radically different view of "strict constructionism" that most of us have. He cannot be trusted on the judges issue, because he is not credible. On the contrary, all factors considered indicate that we should be TERRIFIED of his judgment on said issue.

He cannot sell us on the "I'll appoint judges who'll protect you from myself" argument because he is not credible on the issue.

RINO. I laugh at that. Who decided what makes a RINO a RINO? Perhaps the real "RINOS" are those that myopically latch onto social issues over which the President has little control, and ignore what Republicans should really stand for today; a tough, non-appeasement stance on Islamic extremists, belief in appointing strict, constructionist judges, and low taxes.

Those who continually call Republicans "RINOS" are generally the same folks who threaten to stay home on election day or vote third party if their candidate loses in the primary.

It is very amusing to me when so many the non-New York freepers attack Rudy incessantly for being liberal suddenly shut up when confronted about his pursuit of conservative policy while governing the previously termed "ungovernable" city of New York.

Months ago, I challenged the anti-Rudy freepers to demonstrate how he turned New York from a cesspool to a veritable paradise by pursuing liberal policies, and guess what, no takers! The change he accomplished in the city I have lived in all my life is nothing short of miraculous! This is one conservative, pro-life Republican who would be very happy to vote for Rudy for President.

He has proven that he can accomplish miracles by pursuing *conservative* policies and I'd love to hear from freepers who could *credibly* argue otherwise!

Face it, the average NYC resident doesn't know squat about guns; guns in the hands of non-law-enforcement individuals in a city like New York serves few purposes - principally murder, armed robbery and cop-killing.

Those crimes are committed by criminals, not the average NYC resident who I'm sure you'd agree is law abiding. As John Lott's research has shown, the correlation between crime and firearm ownership is inverse, more guns, less crime. Andedotally you'll see that borne out in the experience of the UK, where a firearms ban has resulted in a boost in violent crime. And in cities like DC and Chicago, where total handgun bans result in some of the highest murder rates in the nation. It's a law enforcement problem, and I admit Rudy has those qualifications, not a gun problem.

If abortion and gun control were his hot-button issues, would he be promising to appoint conservative judges?

Talk is cheap. Actions speak louder than words. Out of sixty judicial nominations made by Rudy as mayor, two were Republicans.

Meanwhile, Rudy supported public funding for abortion, opposed a PBA ban, received awards from NARAL, took guns away from long-time NYC permit holders, and spoke strongly in favor of assault-weapons bans and stringent restrictions on handguns.

So excuse us if his history is not washed away by lukewarm assurances.