As far as I can see, Rudy Giuliani is not a socialist while Hillary Clinton stands well to the left of her husband and therefore does qualify as a socialist. If there’s an issue in which Clinton is better than Giuliani on, it’s news to me.
Is there any reason to think Hillary Clinton would not be at least a Carter-level disaster as president? Meanwhile, Giuliani already has experience as one America’s greatest mayors ever, changing New York from “the ungovernable city” to the powerhouse it should be-— one might even call him the Joe Torre of mayors. According to Burke, order is the first need of society; that is what Giuliani provided New York in his battle against street crime and the mob.
Unfortunately, Giuliani has shown throughout his career that he sees the law as clay to be molded for whatever he thinks the moment requires. His defenses of his stances on illegal immigration, gun control, campaign finance reform all reflect the creative use he made of the of the law as a (very effective) U.S. Attorney. The dangers of the pragmatic view approach are only magnified when the person holding it also holds the presidency.
Yes, Giuliani says he wants justices like Scalia and Thomas on the Supreme Court. But does he even understand what that means? After all, many left wing legal experts admit that Roe was wrongly decided, yet Giuliani has stated that a “strict constructionist” could reasonably uphold it:
They can look at it and say, it has been the law for this period of time, therefore we are going to respect the precedent. Conservatives can come to that conclusion as well. I would leave it up to them. I would not have a litmus test on that. My overall view would be judges who are going to struggle with the meaning of the Constitution, and that applies to criminal justice issues, it applies to terrorism issues, it applies to a whole host of issues, to the Second Amendment and the individual right to bear arms, there is a whole group of issues.
So while Giuliani may honestly believe he will appoint justices like Thomas and Scalia, I don’t believe he comprehends what kinds of justices either of those men are.
In any event, the question is not, is “Giuliani better than Hillary?” but, is Giuliani better than Duncan Hunter, Ron Paul, Fred Thompson, Mike Huckabee or Mitt Romney?
But here’s a question for you anyway. Should conservatives have voted for Gerald Ford after he won the nomination against Ronald Reagan, or sat out the election/made a protest vote? One might argue that because Ronald Reagan did so much good for America and Jimmy Carter’s unbridled leftism did so much good for Reagan’s election, it was just as well that Ford lost to Carter... But there was no guarantee at the time of Carter’s inauguration that he would be defeated, much less by Ronald Reagan. My opinion is that it’s always best to vote for the most conservative, most capable candidate who has a reasonable shot at winning, whether in the primaries or the general election, and that therefore voting for Ford in the general election would have been the right thing to do, just voting for Giuliani in the general election, if he wins it, would be the right thing to do in the future.
Keep drinking the koolaid.
This doesn't matter anyway, he won't get anyone like this past a Democratic Senate (and neither would anyone else). I'll settle for anyone to the right of Kennedy.