Where we part company on this is the Guiliani camp's insistence on pushing the false dichotomy of "we must nominate Guiliani to defeat Clinton". It's false for two reasons:
The fact is, I'm sick and tired of hearing that we must abandon conservatism just to "win". What kind of "win" is it when we sacrifice all we hold dear to get it? You can throw whatever "clarifying statements" you want around, the fact is that Guiliani is a 100% NARAL-supported politician.
He's also no friend to the pro-2A crowd; prior to his 9/11 fame, his record on "security" was to disarm the law-abiding. His supposed "fiscal conservative" record is mixed at best. He's supported illegal immigrants and their enablers. He's in favor of a big, intrusive, and authoritarian government. His personal morals and ethics are decidedly below par for the GOP.
Rudy is the wrong man, at the wrong time, running for the wrong office. If he wins the GOP nomination, conservatism in this country is DEAD -- it will prove that all one has to do is throw platitudes toward the right, provide them with a bogeyman, and then they'll blindly follow along.
I'll have no part of it.
My positions aren’t etched in stone. That would be foolish. Conditions change.
The idea is to win so that the defective and dangerous clintons do not retake the White House, not that any particular R becomes president.
We should field the strongest R. To do any less would be irresponsible.
I join that.
Rudy is just as liberal as the Clinton's.
So maybe I'll be a man without a party like Zell Miller, but someday I will have to answer to the Boss of the Universe.