“We need someone to win. That is why I felt bad for some of those who have been banned. This what motivates many to defend Rudy. They think he has a chance to beat Hilde-beast.”
The thing is he is nearly parallel to the Hildabeast on his positions. They are both liberals. What have you won if you’ve compromised all your principles to do so?
“People fear what will happen with WOT, if a not totally conservative is running, so do they over look certain issues... that may be.”
You basically have to look over all issues and vote solely on the WOT to vote for Guiliani. Even then, what are his real qualifications at fighting terror? He fought crime in NYC, but what has he done to evidence he can fight the global WOT? He recently commented that we could lose in Iraq and still succeed in the WOT. How could that be? He did a good job on 9/11, but did he really do anything that any mayor wouldn’t do as far as clean up and attending funerals? There are other candidates running that have a solid knowledge of the WOT. McCain has been its biggest supporter, not that I’m supporting McCain. Hunter is head of the House Armed Services Committee, and he served himself. I think he would be qualified.
“Personally I think when Rudy Giuliani says he will only nominate Constitutionalists judges, I believe him. He will leave those issues to the states.”
He appointed mostly liberal judges while in NYC. Also, he says that he thinks women should ultimately have the choice for abortion. He says judges could interpret Roe vs. Wade as good or bad, and he claims Ginsberg (ardent pro-abort) is a good judge.
Ultimately, there are better candidates that are conservative on most issues who would be just as qualified to fight the WOT.