[NormsRevenge]

John Mark Reynolds is the founder and director of the Torrey Honors Institute, and Associate Professor of Philosophy, at Biola University. His personal website can be found at www.johnmarkreynolds.com and his blog can be found at www.johnmarkreynolds.info.

[Vaquero]

…most of Clintons Policies are very similar to most of mine... Rudy Giuliani 1996

I’ve said that I’ll uphold a woman’s right to choice, that I will fund abortions so that a poor woman is not deprived of a right others can exercise… Rudy Giuliani 1989.

On Gun Control This is an industry that is profiting from the suffering of innocent people. What’s worse, its profits rest on a number of illegal and immoral practices. This lawsuit is meant to end the free pass that the gun industry has so long enjoyed... Rudy Giuliani 2000 after filing suit against gun makers and distributors.

On Gun Control We need a federal law that bans all assault weapons, and if in fact you do need a handgun you should be subjected to at least the same restrictions-and really stronger ones-that exist for driving an automobile... Rudy Giuliani 1997

[finnman69]

And I should care what this author thinks because?.........

[jla]

I've stated often that Giuliani is not running out of any deeply held love for America or the American ideal. He covets the prestige and power of the Oval Office.


"Pro-lifers are merely treating Rudy EXACTLY the way Rudy himself treats the unborn.........as a disposable nuisance". (HT to Liz)

[American Quilter]

I don't know John Mark Reynolds, but I'm in complete agreement with this article.

[presidio9]

John Mark Reynolds is an idiot. I certainly will not vote for Giuliani in the primary, but if he wins the nomination, then a failure to vote for him is the exact same thing as a vote for Hillary Clinton.

[Atlas Sneezed]

Mussolini "made the trains run on time," too.

That doesn't mean that it is impossible to make trains run on time without fascism.

Nor is it impossible to have a Republican nominee who can win who isn't a leftist in so many important ways.

[firewalk]

Romney?

nope...thanks anyway

[misterrob]

I don't agree with some of the analysis in this but some things to consider:

Will Rudy raise taxes? (We know what Hillary will do)

Will Rudy nominate constitutionalist or activist judges? (We know what Hillary will do)

Will Rudy stab our troops in the back or support them? (We have seen what Hillary has done here)

Will Rudy look to grow the economy? (See above)

Will Rudy embrace capitalism or socialism? (See Hillary care)

Vote your conscience in the primaries, stop the Beast in the general election

[Michael.SF.]

My presidential vote just might stay at home (the Republic will survive!).

Yes, and we 'survived' the Great depression, and we 'survived' WWII and we will also 'survive' the Clinton II administration.

But there sure will be a lot of hell to pay in doing so.

Given the choice (vs. Hillary), Rudy has my vote.

[zarf]

Romney will win the presidency.

[Carry_Okie]

Giuliani has much dirty linen, but the media likes his kind of secret and will protect him (as it can) the way it protected Clinton. He will be a player to the end.

"The end" being right after the nomination, when the MSM "discovers" that history. Rudy will take the dive right on cue.

[PRND21]

"Probably".
He, and the rest, will do the right thing and fold like a high priced Mexican tortilla.

[Cicero]

This is a highly persuasive article. There's a lot I like about Rudy Giuliani. I was working in New York for the past 35 years, and I witnessed first hand what he describes in the opening paragraphs. Giuliani did, indeed, turn the city around, and he did it in the face of a hostile press and massive vested interests.

I have been saying that if he pledged himself to a positive position on the life issues, I could support him. But I have my doubts, and this article reinforces those doubts.

I'm afraid he is right that there are only three realistic candidates in view, and likely that will be the position still a year from now. And McCain is simply not an acceptable candidate. That appears to leave Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani as the only plausible choices. Which of them is more trustworthy? Which of them can be counted on not to betray the base? It's a hard question. Giuliani is honest and open. But I would agree that he lacks the traditional religious background that Mitt Romney brings with him. I'd prefer a Catholic to a Mormon, but it would have to be a real Catholic, and it's not at all clear that Giuliani qualifies.

Divorce, for instance. It's not an insuperable barrier, but he's on his third wife and as far as I know is barred from receiving communion. I haven't heard anything about annulments.

[meg88]

Voting for perfection in a candidate will get you Hillary Clinton.

I think Rudy's impulses on 'new' issues of statecraft will be just fine

[M. Dodge Thomas]

President Giuliani would be the end of a certain sort of American "exceptionalism"; the end of a long era of a "City on a Hill" view of Presidential purpose, if we choose Giuliani we would be opting for a very "European" sort of leader, chosen with little concern for his personal life on pragmatic and perhaps even cynical grounds.

[George W. Bush]

Mitt Romney is a Republican who has often taken “wrong positions” on important issues. . . changed his mind . . . and grown as all statesmen do. I don’t agree with him on all the “issues.” This I know about Romney: he has friends who are very conservative, family who is very conservative, and is a traditionalist in his religious view of the world. His deepest and first impulse will be to understand the American tradition . . . not to innovate.

This is why, after first deciding I could vote for Mitt, then deciding he was way too liberal, I've returned to a more neutral stance. I simply cannot vote for Giuliani. But I could see myself voting for Mitt. But he has to be a lot more sincere in drawing back from previous liberal policy and make it so convincing that he can't back away from it. OTOH, once in the White House, he wouldn't be running scared of the wildly liberal MA legislature and courts.

Rudy Giuliani would be the first open culture-of-death candidate to receive the Republican nomination since the Reagan Revolution. He would shatter the pro-life Republican presidential monolith that provided key margins in so many states.

Not only could he lose his run at the WH by shattering the pro-life/pro-family/pro-gun GOP coalition, he would do terrible harm to conservative candidates downticket from him. With Rudy as the nominee, we could have losses as great as 2006 again in Congress. And I think he doesn't care one bit whether he destroys the rest of the party. It's all about Rudy, Rudy, Rudy.

I think the writer is correct about McStain too. And it seems hard to picture the three most conservative candidates, the congressmen, getting the money or support to make a run that will cost $350 million minimum. Mitt and Rudi can both raise it. McStain could but it won't do him any good.

[phillyfanatic]

A fine reasoned but flawed analysis. Romney is a nice guy with NE roots. Which means his draw is limited. Rudy G is not the Biola type Christian conserv that I ordinarily would want. I thought Bush as a Christian would follow conserv views too! Still, in a race where the Dem candidates are far worse than any Pub running, I just cannot see Mitt winning the primaries. That is enough to win at the Convention. Rudy G will do that and could defeat the two empty leftist socialist pacifists who will win the Dem primaries and nomination. Mitt,unfortunately will not.

[phillyfanatic]

A fine reasoned but flawed analysis. Romney is a nice guy with NE roots. Which means his draw is limited. Rudy G is not the Biola type Christian conserv that I ordinarily would want. I thought Bush as a Christian would follow conserv views too! Still, in a race where the Dem candidates are far worse than any Pub running, I just cannot see Mitt winning the primaries. That is enough to win at the Convention. Rudy G will do that and could defeat the two empty leftist socialist pacifists who will win the Dem primaries and nomination. Mitt,unfortunately will not.

[Reagan Man]

Good article, thanks for posting it.

I especially enjoyed this part.

First, New York City is not the United States . . . as shocking as this news might be to my friends who live in the Big Apple.

NYCity had lots of problems that were unique to the Big Apple alone. But they weren't major social issues that effect the entire nation. 70% of NYCity voters are registered Democrats. They don't give a rats arse about the key social issues. They don't care about stopping abortion, allowing more gun rights, less gay rights or stopping illegals from entering the US. And neither does Rudy.

Rudy did a good job as Mayor by NYCity standards, but cleaning up Times Square, eliminating the squeegee-men, arresting public urinators and catching turnstile jumpers are not the issues that conservative activists will be judging candidates on in the GOP primaries.

Rudy`s political positions on the major social issues will be what conservative activists will be judging him on. And Rudy`s stances on the social issues remain in lockstep with liberal Democrats like Hillary Clitnon, Algore, John Kerry, John Edwards and Ted Kennedy.

If people want to ignore Rudy`s liberal record and his lifetime of support for liberal causes, they're free to do so. But it won't stop me from speaking out about how wrong Rudy is for America. In the end, I'm confident conservatives wil reject Rudy as the GOP nominee.

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

Interesting CHOICE of words...

Visiting New York City was a trip to a third-world country that had become so by choice.

Times-Square was disgusting . . . full of the sort of raunchy shops that the morally stunted think are adult.

In ancient times, when Rome was in a mess, they would call in a strong man . . . a Roman dictator to straighten out the problems before sending him home. New York City was rotting in the 1970’s and it need someone like Rudy Giuliani, a Roman patrician and strong man, to save it. America is not so badly off . . . the economy is sound and the War is still winnable.

BUT what destroyed Rome from within is destroying America from within, sound economy secularist Mammon-based criteria notwithstanding.

If you cannot carry Hope’s vote, then you cannot win!

---

Job 5:16
So the poor have hope, and injustice shuts its mouth.

Psalm 25:3
No one whose hope is in you will ever be put to shame, but they will be put to shame who are treacherous without excuse.

Psalm 25:21
May integrity and uprightness protect me, because my hope is in you.

Psalm 37:9
For evil men will be cut off, but those who hope in the LORD will inherit the land.

Psalm 43:5
Why are you downcast, O my soul? Why so disturbed within me? Put your hope in God, for I will yet praise him, my Savior and my God.

Psalm 52:9
I will praise you forever for what you have done; in your name I will hope, for your name is good. I will praise you in the presence of your saints.

Psalm 71:14
But as for me, I will always have hope; I will praise you more and more.

Psalm 119:43
Do not snatch the word of truth from my mouth, for I have put my hope in your laws.

And the inspiration for the old hymn "Great Is Thy Faithfulness"
Lamentations 3:21-24
This I recall to my mind, therefore have I hope.
It is of the LORD's mercies that we are not consumed, because his compassions fail not.
They are new every morning: great is thy faithfulness.
The LORD is my portion, saith my soul; therefore will I hope in him.


http://www.biblegateway.com/