> Explain why Rudy's anti-gun lawsuit and his sanctuary-
> city actions should not be considered disqualifiers?
Two reasons:
1) No single position should be a "disqualifier". If politics is reduced to single issues, all you're guaranteeing is a long, slow disappointment.
2) How long do you think Giuliani would've survived in NYC politics if he mirrored your positions on every issue? He'd be muttering to himself with an old copy of "Soldier of Fortune" in a Bronx loft by now. That's not a knock on you. It's a knock on NYC politics, but if you disqualify Giuliani because of it, you're essentially ruling out ALL experienced executives from ALL urban areas as leaders. That is NOT a prescription for success.
I would consider the Second Amendment my first and foremost issue, along with rule-of-law. Rudy's lawsuit showed he has no respect for either.
I recognize full well that I can't expect everything I'd like from a candidate. But I see no reason to support a candidate who goes so strongly against my most important beliefs.
2) How long do you think Giuliani would've survived in NYC politics if he mirrored your positions on every issue? He'd be muttering to himself with an old copy of "Soldier of Fortune" in a Bronx loft by now. That's not a knock on you. It's a knock on NYC politics, but if you disqualify Giuliani because of it, you're essentially ruling out ALL experienced executives from ALL urban areas as leaders. That is NOT a prescription for success.
Who forced Rudy to file the lawsuit, and if he felt he was forced into it, why has he not since apologized?
If Rudy had been absolutely 100% anti-gun, how would his actions have differed from those he actually took?
For better or for worse, 2nd Amendment advocates disagree with you.