Giuliani: Is he as bad as Clinton, or is he even worse?

[Charles L. Cotton]

Yes, if he [Giuliani] is the Republican nominee. I have also stated that he is not my 1st choice.

Frankie: Perhaps I have just missed it, but I don't recall you ever taking the position that we must do everything possible to prevent Giuliani from becoming the Republican nominee. Rather, you seem to be campaigning for Giuliani on a two-pronged platform; 1) he's better than Clinton; and 2) he'll get better judges and justices confirmed to the courts. (I disagree on both points but that's not the issue.) Yes, you have said you like Thompson, but that comment was almost made in passing.

While we all can have honest disagreements as to who would be worse for gun owners as between Clinton and Giuliani, we should be doing everything we can to get a nominee that would block (both before passage and as a veto) any anti-gun legislation a Democratically-controlled House and Senate may send to the President. I don't see you taking that position. (Surely, you don't believe Giuliani would be such a President.)

Chas.

[frankie_the_yankee]

Frankie: Perhaps I have just missed it, but I don't recall you ever taking the position that we must do everything possible to prevent Giuliani from becoming the Republican nominee.

I probably haven't ever said we should "do everything possible" to keep Rudy from being the Republican nominee. And I think the term 'everything possible' covers a lot of ground and has the potential to make the Republican nominee damaged goods no matter who ends up getting it, thus handing the election to Hillary/Obama.

So urge people to vote for other Republicans. Make reasoned arguments as to why they should, why other candidates would be better. But I would counsel against getting into a mudslinging contest. This would just play into the hands of the media, who like a juicy story and who very much want to elect the Democrat.

I will further say that when I cast a primary ballot, it will be for either Thompson, Huckabee, Romney, or McCain, roughly in that order. (I haven't honestly made up my mind.)

Now that having been said, it's also true that as I read the tea leaves I think that Rudy is the likely nominee. If that happens, then everything I have posted as to the nature of the choice between Hillary/Obama and Rudy would apply IMO, especially the part about the effects of staying home or voting for a minor party candidate, what kinds of judges they are likely to appoint and what that would mean for 2A rights.

If Rudy is not the nominee, then our choice is much easier (and better), as just about any of the other Republicans are better on the 2A and would appoint as good or better judges than Rudy would.

Where I would apply the term 'everything possible' is in defeating the Democrat. I would advocate that people do everything possible to defeat whoever the Democrat nominee is. If a Democrat gets elected, the federal judiciary will be shifted disasterously against the 2A for a long time to come.

[jimlongley]

it's also true that as I read the tea leaves I think that Rudy is the likely nominee.

So all of your preceding sophistry is just the result of some sort of fortune telling?

[srothstein]

What kind of judges has Hillary said she would appoint? And what are the chances she is tellng the truth?

You know, this raises an interesting quandary for me. I think Hillary has said she would appoint judges who see the Constitution the way she does. I may be mistaken on that since I don't know of a direct quote of her on judicial or any other appointments.

But we all know Hillary is a liar who cannot be trusted. If she is lying about the type of judge she will appoint, and she says she will appoint judges I do not like, does that mean she will appoint good judges?

Maybe I need to vote for her because I disagree with almost everything she says, but I figure she is lying most of the time too.

[frankie_the_yankee]

Maybe I need to vote for her because I disagree with almost everything she says, but I figure she is lying most of the time too.

She should run ads that say, "Vote for me even if you disagree with what I am saying, because I am probably lying."

[KBCraig]

Maybe I need to vote for her because I disagree with almost everything she says, but I figure she is lying most of the time too.

She should run ads that say, "Vote for me even if you disagree with what I am saying, because I am probably lying."

Captain Kirk told Harry Mudd's android, "Everything I am saying is a lie."

[seeker_two]

Why would Rudy be worse than Hillary as President? Simple....the President is typically considered the head of the party they represent....

If Hillary is elected, then she'll control the Democrat Party. We know she's an anti-2A liberal & will push her party to vote for the anti 2-A liberal agenda that they probably would vote for anyway.....

If Rudy is elected, then he'll control the Republican party. We know he's an anti-2A liberal. He'll put even the most conservative 2A representatives in a position where they have to vote for Rudy's anti-2A policies or stand against their own party--and risk losing party support (ie MONEY) in their reelection bids. And many of them WILL cave---look at Kay Bailey Hutchison. Meanwhile, the Democrats will vote for the anti-2A policies Rudy supports and try to claim credit for them.

Rudy is far more dangerous than Hillary....so much so that, if he's the GOP nominee, I will be voting for a third-party candidate who's platform most closely represents my views..... http://www.constitutionparty.org

Like the knight in Indy 3....Choose wisely.....

[lawrnk]

But if you want establish a federal juduciary that will protect the 2A for the foreseeable future, vote for Hillary's Republican opponent - no matter who it turns out to be.

Even Satan.

Very well said!!!

Vote to defeat the socialists (democrats).
The primary directive is to WIN.
Voting for ideals is admirable, but irrelevant if it includes defeat at the polls.
Without victory there is NO power or voice in government.
Under socialism (read: democrat victory), our 2A rights will be subject to more AWB, Magazine capacity limits, ammunition restrictions, Brady half-wit restrictions, etc.

Sorry..... I was caught up in the moment....(/rant off)

[seeker_two]

If you want to pick a winner on Election Day, go to the horse races.....

If you want to vote for the candidate that represents your views, vote for the candidate that represents your views--whatever party or "chance of winning" that may be......

[Trainman]

If you want to vote for the candidate that represents your views, vote for the candidate that represents your views--whatever party or "chance of winning" that may be......

A philosophy built upon idealism.

The practical use of that ideal can be viewed historically when Ross Perot was a third party candidate in 92 and 96. Because of that, this country had 8 years of Bill Clinton.

That is what strict idealism will bring.

Ideological goals are great - until the parties have chosen their candidates. Then you have to decide if you want to win, or be a loser.

[flb_78]

If you want to vote for the candidate that represents your views, vote for the candidate that represents your views--whatever party or "chance of winning" that may be......

A philosophy built upon idealism.

The practical use of that ideal can be viewed historically when Ross Perot was a third party candidate in 92 and 96. Because of that, this country had 8 years of Bill Clinton.

That is what strict idealism will bring.

Ideological goals are great - until the parties have chosen their candidates. Then you have to decide if you want to win, or be a loser.

I'm not so sure that Bush the First would of been much better.

"read my lips, no new taxes"

[Trainman]

I'm not so sure that Bush the First would of been much better.

"read my lips, no new taxes"

Yes you are absolutly correct. We suffered a dissapointment there with a failed campaign promise.
However, I believe that as a country, we suffered enormous damage to the 2nd ammendment individual RKBA under Bill Clinton's administration.

Here is a link to an article to illustrate some of the damage brought by Clinton during his administration that had to be undone.

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/R ... &issue=010

I would rather not have to endure the democrats again and have to undo their legacy when they leave.

[NcongruNt]

If you want to vote for the candidate that represents your views, vote for the candidate that represents your views--whatever party or "chance of winning" that may be......

A philosophy built upon idealism.

The practical use of that ideal can be viewed historically when Ross Perot was a third party candidate in 92 and 96. Because of that, this country had 8 years of Bill Clinton.

That is what strict idealism will bring.

Ideological goals are great - until the parties have chosen their candidates. Then you have to decide if you want to win, or be a loser.

So we're not supposed to vote for who we believe is the best candidate? I respectfully disagree with you here.

Both the Democrats and the Republicans tend to do stupid things when given absolute power. The Democrats erode our rights and liberties with government mismanagement in the form of gun bans and social programs. The Republicans do the same in the form of wars waged on false pretenses and mass surveillance on its citizens in the name of security. The only thing that really seems to temper such action is a deadlock of power between the parties.

Regarding Ross Perot, there's no evidence that Ross Perot "won" the election for Bill Clinton. It has even been stated here that statistics show he "pulled" more votes from Clinton supporters than Bush supporters, which would make your point moot. Ross Perot ran a valid campaign and won substantial votes. I find it irritating that we are so entrenched in the status quo that when someone who runs for office as an independent, he is essentially labeled as a vote thief. Last I checked, people still had minds of their own. They have the freedom in this country to vote for whomever they please. If I vote for someone independent, it's my own choice. I am not stealing a vote from "your" party, or anyone else's. If it were to come down to such horrible choices as Giuliani and Clinton (both have terrible 2A records), I would most certainly count a vote for an independent as a valid choice. If the Republican party makes so poor a choice as to give its candidacy to Giuliani, I think it is perfectly valid to take my vote elsewhere. To do otherwise serves only to provide validation for an obviously broken system. Were an independent to "lose" an election for the Republican party candidate, it would certainly force the party to take a step back to see what it is doing wrong.

[flb_78]

So we're not supposed to vote for who we believe is the best candidate? I respectfully disagree with you here.

Both the Democrats and the Republicans tend to do stupid things when given absolute power. The Democrats erode our rights and liberties with government mismanagement in the form of gun bans and social programs. The Republicans do the same in the form of wars waged on false pretenses and mass surveillance on its citizens in the name of security. The only thing that really seems to temper such action is a deadlock of power between the parties.

Regarding Ross Perot, there's no evidence that Ross Perot "won" the election for Bill Clinton. It has even been stated here that statistics show he "pulled" more votes from Clinton supporters than Bush supporters, which would make your point moot. Ross Perot ran a valid campaign and won substantial votes. I find it irritating that we are so entrenched in the status quo that when someone who runs for office as an independent, he is essentially labeled as a vote thief. Last I checked, people still had minds of their own. They have the freedom in this country to vote for whomever they please. If I vote for someone independent, it's my own choice. I am not stealing a vote from "your" party, or anyone else's. If it were to come down to such horrible choices as Giuliani and Clinton (both have terrible 2A records), I would most certainly count a vote for an independent as a valid choice. If the Republican party makes so poor a choice as to give its candidacy to Giuliani, I think it is perfectly valid to take my vote elsewhere. To do otherwise serves only to provide validation for an obviously broken system. Were an independent to "lose" an election for the Republican party candidate, it would certainly force the party to take a step back to see what it is doing wrong.

+P

[seeker_two]

If you want to vote for the candidate that represents your views, vote for the candidate that represents your views--whatever party or "chance of winning" that may be......

A philosophy built upon idealism.

The practical use of that ideal can be viewed historically when Ross Perot was a third party candidate in 92 and 96. Because of that, this country had 8 years of Bill Clinton.

That is what strict idealism will bring.

Ideological goals are great - until the parties have chosen their candidates. Then you have to decide if you want to win, or be a loser.

http://www.lonestarpark.com/

Need directions?...