He's halfway there... for me, at least

Conservative critics of Rudy Giuliani say he is too liberal when it comes to three of the most fundamental conservative Republican issues: guns, immigration, and abortion.

Well, he apparently has "evolved" on the issue of gun control.  Yes, I know this is late in coming, but I believe intelligent people can be wrong for a long time, then suddenly see the error of their ways.  This shows that Rudy realizes the rest of the country is not New York, and that to be successful leading the rest of the country, he has to distance himself from some of his New York policies.  That demonstrates political wisdom.  I believe Rudy can win over the NRA crowd, as long as he continues to move in this direction.  I think he is too clever not to.  So check off one of the three.

As far as I am concerned, this puts Rudy halfway there.  You see, for me, only two of those three issues are deal breakers.  If Rudy can now articulate a clear and consistent message on immigration that rejects amnesty in any form and protects our borders, then he will have cleared the obstacles necessary for me.

Many conservatives will hate me for this, but the truth is, abortion really isn't a deal-breaker for me.  We've had Roe v. Wade for over 30 years, and civilization hasn't collapsed.  I'd much rather focus on helping individuals make the best decisions for their families than make their decisions for them.  I believe that if we, as a society, can get back to teaching morals and values, then "family values" legislation will be redundant.

Besides, the only way to truly satisfy the single-issue abortion voter is to ban all abortions, period.  The reality is, while that might please Mary Starrett and Dr. Dobson, it won't win national elections.  Any Republican capable of beating Hillary Clinton is going to have to support at least some right to abortion.  And once you start supporting some, there isn't much differentiation between Rudy and any other "some abortion" candidate.

So Rudy is halfway to being fully acceptable.  At least to me.

Still doesn't make him my first choice, but at least it helps me rest easy knowing he is a front-runner.  And, if my first choice wins the nomination, it makes Rudy more appealing as a potential running-mate.

Comments

[Wesley]

The problem about his 'change' in views on gun control is that I don't believe him. I think he's just trying to win an election.

Even if his statements are true, I still don't agree with him. He fully believes that it's okay for people in New York to be disarmed. Even if he doesn't want to control other locations, that position is abhorrent to me.

[Gullyborg]

Like I said, he is moving in the right direction, and to win over the NRA crowd he must continue to do so. But I believe he cares more about winning - and staying in power - than passing a liberal agenda. Call that opportunist if you want to (I won't argue). But it does mean that, in a nation where a clear majority supports gun owners over gun grabbers, Giuliani will pander to the majority over the minority. That's good for us... even if he is a smarmy flip flopper. The alternative is Hillary. The choice is clear.

Now, if Rudy were out there defending his anti-gun record, that would be a totally different story, and clear cause for alarm...

[DarePDX]

Just to mention it Gully.

Rudy is prolife in the way our party needs the Federal Executive to be. He believes in interpruting the US Consitition under the concept of Original Intent. So far from what I've seen that would include the 2nd ammendment at the Federal level.

He will be a living consitution overturning machine if elected.

My expectation from meeting Gulliani and hearing him speak a few times is that he will become the U.S. litigator in chief. He knows how to find the issues and cases to drive our agenda upto the now conservative U.S. Supreme Court.

If you ever get a chance to listen to him recount his time as mayor most of his success was in fending off the liberal litigation attempting to stop his reforms.

Think about what the executive is. Its the cheif executive over regulators.

In my opinion Rudy is the best executive in the race.
By far and away he will be the most skilled in driving an agenda.

[Nancy]

He's only saying what they want to hear. Politics as usual.

[OregonGuy]

I watched his responses about immigration duruing one of the debates. I took away an understanding that may need greater articulation.

That was, being in New York City, with a federal goverment that was opposed to dealing with the issue of illegal immigration, his only tactic was to do as much as possible to make sure that illegals understood the rules of behaviour that were now, under his leadership, going to apply.

I believe he stated that attempts to get illegals removed were rebuffed by the feds.

Did you see this? Did you get this take away?

[Gullyborg]

OregonGuy, I hadn't heard about that. I'll see what I can find out and think about it some.

[puggs]

Gully this caught my eye,

"Many conservatives will hate me for this, but the truth is, abortion really isn't a deal-breaker for me."

I won't anyway.

My feelings on it are deeply rooted in personal experience, my wife and I lost a son in 04, he was stillborn. I held him for a long time before the nurse took him away, he was just over two pounds.

I'm barely rational on the subject of throwing away what we so desperatly wanted to save. I do believe this though, a good and decent person can disagree, I can hate the act, the sin, yet embrace the sinner. I believe in conversion and redemption, not retribution,

not for this.

As for Rudy, I favor Thompson, but would easily support Rudy in the general if he won.

The alternative is repulsive.

[Patrick Joubert Conlon]

Rudy (or even Romney) will do in a pinch if Fred fails.

[Gray One]

Rudy is simply not trustworthy on his 2ND Amendment stance, and his current "wide stance" is nothing but opportunism. If he is all the Republicans can bring forth, I will simply go fishing again, as I did in 06. Hillary may be worse, but I no longer am willing to vote for someone simply because they are "less evil". Either a candidate can earn my support and vote, or do without.
The Republican party has basically said they do not need or want conservatives,they have ignored the pro gun voters except at election time,, and actively demonized those who opposed the immigration bill sell out. Now, explain why I should care about one liberal micturating wingless hymenopteran over the other ?

When the Republican party again treats conservatives as a _major_ part of the party, and nominates a true PRO gun, conservative, anti ILLEGAL immigration candidate, call me. ( Of course, a little cleaning of their ranks on earmarks, perks, etc. would also help.)
Rudy- no way.