While I whole heartedly agree with your analysis, get ready to duck some emotional slings and arrows. You will be bombarded with a lot of illogical/non-factual impassioned arguments against you. You will not see many practical analyses such as yours for other candidates. They will argue for their candidate on philosophical grounds, not on who stands the best chance of leading a nation at war.
If we lose the war, everything else is moot.
Becareful, you’ll run afoul of the PC police.
Thou shall NOT say anything positive about Rudy.
BS, it’s nothing to do with war or border security or anything else. It’s a popularity contest plain and simple. What the hell does Rudy Guiliani know about war? He knows how to avoid one when called to serve, but besides that, what does he know?
He went against Pataki and endorsed the Democrat in the governors race and you think he won’t stab you in the back? You trust him? Those who hold your flawed perceptions are all that keep Rudy on top. Being a smarta$$ to an oil tick isn’t credibility on fighting war.
If you want to discuss illogical/non-factual arguments, I am here. I do agree that is the mistake many make in attacking Rudy from a purely socially conservative platform. He is so easily knocked down on that which so many wrongly believe to be his strongest issue. If national security and the WOT are your concern then that narrows it down to Hunter or McCain for you.
Hunter is by far the best but McCain has a good understanding of the issue, if one can trust him to apply it. Firstly, if the borders aren’t secure any national security we pretend to have is just us kidding ourselves. Rudy hasn’t a clue as to our military capabilities nor its limitations. He doesn’t understand what our military needs nor has he ever worked to get them what they need. As opposed to Hunter who understand all these thing very well. He has been there done that. Please, do not counter my argument by stating some numbers from a push poll. I don’t care about polls they are not my guide nor is there anything practical about them.
The man most responsible for that was Police Chief Bill Bratton, who was dumped by Giuliani when he got his picture on the cover of Time in 1996. And Giuliani didn't talk to him again for ten years. Anyone who threatens Rudy's ego gets dumped, abandoned or otherwise disposed of.
So, what exactly did Rudy do on 9/11 that was so special? Let’s look at what he did before 9/11 that was kinda special.
Mayor Giuliani sued all the way up to the Supreme Court to defend the city’s sanctuary policy against a federal law stating that city employees could not be prohibited from cooperating with the INS. Oh yeah? sez Giuliani; just watch me. The INS, he claimed with what turned out to be grotesque irony, only aims to “terrorize people.” Though he lost in court, he remained defiant to the end.
On September 5, 2001, his handpicked charter-revision committee ruled that New York could still keep immigration information confidential to preserve trust between immigrants and government. Six days later, several visa-overstayers participated in the most devastating attack on our country in history.
Though I don’t identify myself as evangelical, born-again, or anything of the sort, I’ve been watching Robertson for 25+ years off and on, mainly as a curiousity.
Anyone who thinks he’s “stupid” or “ignorant” is self-deluded. He’s the son of a US Senator, went to military schools for most of his upbringing, magna cum laude from Washington and Lee, a Marine officer, and Yale Law School. Robertson is no dummy.
Like it or not and just looking at the facts, for as long as he’s been around Robertson has been an ardent supporter of Israel (but for apocalyptic reasons many of us wouldn;t subscribe to). Yeah, his reasons may be millenial, but the end result is a deep-down concern that Israel must be defended by America, no matter what the cost.
Israel is easily a Top-5 issue for Robertson.
IMO this intersects with Giuliani’s uncompromising support for Israel but for entirely different reasons (and in this case reasons close to my own). Without all of the detail, I understand G to believe that we have many historic, legal, and social reasons to keep Israel intact. Most importantly, they are an ally by treaty, and a (revived) construct of the West.
Anyone who has ever paid any attention to Robertson knows that regarding Israel he thinks of “the long term”. In fact, the Very Long Term.
IMO he found a kindred spirit in Giuliani, even though they arrive there from completely different directions.
REASON, COLD, CALCULATING, UNIMPASSIONED, REASON , must furnish all the materials for our future support and defence.--Let those materials be moulded into general intelligence, sound morality, and in particular, a reverence for the constitution and laws: and, that we improved to the last; that we remained free to the last; that we revered his name to the last; that, during his long sleep, we permitted no hostile foot to pass over or desecrate his resting place; shall be that which to learn the last trump shall awaken our WASHINGTON. Upon these let the proud fabric of freedom rest, as the rock of its basis; and as truly as has been said of the only greater institution, "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."