Ok, but here's what I don't understand. Under a Giuliani presidency gun laws stay pretty much unchanged: some big cities may restrict ownership while other areas of the country may continue to do likewise. Michigan passed a cc law in the past 5 or so years, and I don't see that being overturned under a Rudy White House. In fact, Rudy has recently gone on record stating that he has no plans to change anything regarding the 2nd Amendment--sort of like what Bush has done.
Almost the same thing can be argued regarding abortion. Though I note that Rudy has defended late term abortions in the past, his recent statements run to the contrary. He's essentially pro-choice, but favors parental rights and says he would appoint justices similar to those already appointed by Bush. All in all, I don't see US abortion policy changing much under Rudy from what it is right now.
But in nearly every other area, especially the War, Rudy's views seem quite solid to me. On the war, on defending Israel, he is staunchly conservative. And I see a stark, stone cold contrast between his views and those of any Democrat when it comes to fighting Islamic extremism.
It's hard for me to understand how anyone could claim there was no substantial difference between Rudy and a Democrat candidate.
There simply isn't ENOUGH substantial difference. If the GOP wants to hold the party together, socons need more than 20 percent to be motivated to support the nominee.
"Liberal Republicans like Rudy are more dangerous than liberal democrats,,,
because liberal Republicans BLUR THE DISTINCTION between liberalism and conservatism,,
MAKING LIBERALISM MUCH MORE ACCEPTABLE"!
"on defending Israel, he [Guliani] is staunchly conservative"
Apparently you have one standard of US resolve for the democracy of Israel and another for democracy of Taiwan.