It's not the deferrment, it's the hypocrisy of dodging the draft deferrment and then prosecuting draft dodgers.
The same hypocrisy he displays while supporting abortion and receiving Holy Communion.
Or the hypocrisy of purchasing an anullment from the Catholic Church after 14 years of marriage.
I really don't know how this can be defended but I'm sure it will be.
It won't be defended. I am convinced that the Rudy strategy is to fend off the critics for as long as possible, try to use 9-11 to deflect his past liberal issues, say the right focus-tested comments that have no connection to his past actions ("strict constructionist" being the most recent example"), and then saturate the airwaves with Rudymercials in the short period leading up to all the front-loaded primaries in hopes that his opponents can't keep up.
Which could well win him the nomination. However, in the general election, the Dems are just as good at raising money and three times better at bull****. And they won't even need the bull****. They will form phantom 527 groups to drive the GOP apart by simply repeating Rudy's liberal past over and over again. And they will show pro-life and pro-gun Dems that there is no difference in that department between Rudy and the Dem nominee and convince them to stay on the Rez. And that will be that.
Setting aside his pro-abort views, I believe he's divorced (from wife #2) and remarried (to wife #3) in a civil ceremony, which would make him ineligible to receive communion in the Catholic church.
(So would his pro-abort views, IMO, but the marital irregularity is easier to prove.)
I understand you've picked a candidate and are getting partisan. I haven't yet.
People who got deferments were not draft dodgers. You're taking a page right out of the Dems playbook, where even Guard service is "draft dodging."
"Or the hypocrisy of purchasing an anullment from the Catholic Church after 14 years of marriage."
A patently false statement such as this tends to discredit the other possibly true comments in your posting.