Forgot one thing.
Anyone defending Rooty Toot, is fair game for attack. That includes your precious goldstategop.
I think that Rudy, and his policies, are fair game. But, I also think that those who do support him should be heard, so long as they do so in a constructive manner, and only booted when they become abusive of the privilege. I doubt they can convince me to support him, but merely shouting down the opposition, instead of refuting their argument, achieves nothing.
If we drive out anyone who dares to go against the local orthodoxy, FR will end up being nothing but an echo chamber, mindlessly congratulating each other on how clever and conservative we are. On the other hand, if those supporters of Guiliani present their best arguments, and those of us who do not support him can clearly refute them, we may convince them to our side. We will, at the least, hone our own arguments.
FO was outed as a dishonest debater when, after being constantly refuted, he resorted to logical fallacies and rhetoric, like "a vote for x is actually a vote for the Dems. Why are you supporting the Dems?" To see similar arguments used by others here makes me think they are likewise incapable of constructing an honest rebuttal. Things such as childish nicknames, repetitious spin slogans, cut and paste hit pieces, and out-of-context misrepresentations only make me suspicious of the persons using them, even if they are done in support of a candidate I tend to favor.
I am left thinking, "If X is such a good choice, why do his supporters need to lie about Y?" and "If FReeper Z had used the same rhetorical tactics in support of Rudy, he'd be banned. Why is it tolerated in support of another candidate?"