The top story on Drudge at the moment:
Glossing over the less appealing line items on his gun control resume, ex-NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani presented himself as sympathetic to the aims of the National Rifle Association and pledged, as president, to protect gun rights.
"Your right to bear arms is based on a reasonable degree of safety," he said.
He indicated that he would oppose new efforts to tighten national gun laws.
"I believe that law endforcement should focus on enforcing the laws that exist on the books as opposed to passing new extensions of laws," he said. "A person's home is their castle. They have the right to protect themselves in their own home."
Giulaini explained the lawsuit he initiated in 2000 against gun manufacturers by saying that he was "excessive in everyway that I could think of in order to reduce crime" but said that "intervening events" like September 11th had caused his views to evolve. "I think that lawsuit has gone in the direction that I don't agree with."
He cited a DC court ruling overturning the city's gun ban as instrumental to changing and "strengthening" his views on gun control. That ruling, Parker vs. the Distict of Columbia, was handed down just as Giuliani was beginning his presidential bid.
I've been critical of Mitt Romney for months for being a disengenuous pandering flip-flopper, all the while saying that I was actually hoping for my preferred candidate, Rudy Giuliani, to change his position on gun rights. I'm happy he appears to have done so, but I don't think it's going to help him very much - I still think record is more important to most voters.
That said, maybe I need to avoid picking on Romney's flip-flops for a while.
Record means quite a bit to gun owners... if his views "evolved" when he needs our votes, will they "evolve" again after he wins?
Worse: What did September 11th, have to do with gun control? He's only giving his critics ammunition about that event being his one irrelevant qualification. If an unrelated event helped his views "evolve" in favor of less gun control, one can only imagine how his stance will evolve in office as gun crime continues to be a problem in major cities and big headline shootings continue to feed the pressures to "do something." He wasn't immune from that pressure in New York City... why would he be immune as President?
This is one of my big problems with Rudy in the primaries. The other big factor is his experience doesn't seem to fit the job description for president. I think he's got plenty of political experience to fight a tough campaign, but if he actually got the job I'd be nervous. Same problem I have with Obama, regardless of specific issue positions.
Now in the general election, if it was Rudy versus any of the current democratic candidates... on gun control, they're obviously disingenuous. Rudy would be the safer bet. But that's not saying much. On the experience bit, I'd be hesitant... but the other issue positions would generally win me over. I just can't support him in the primary with McCain still in the running, even if his bid is hopeless. Given the democratic stance on the Iraq War and central government power there's also little chance of me pulling a dem ballot this primary... I see nobody deserving of support.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Elections anymore are reminiscent of Shakespearean tragedy, every candidate has a fatal flaw. The trick is to find the least objectionable one.
I don't even think Mary Kay has enough Lip Stick to make that Pig look good.
Of course Fred Thompson hasn't, nor does he have to "Evolve" on gun control.
Like Bill Brady used to say, Gun Control is a steady aim.
Gun control is two hands and a brain. conceal carry should be the federal law. Screening, education and field training required. Instant Home land Security, national guard, anti crime team. This premise works everywhere for everyone except for Muslim Martyrs. Most everyone else wants to live. Texas has set the precedent.
If only the Constitution had some provision for this... something along the lines of:
"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress"
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Ah, but Glock, that's not the version that passed, now is it?
I do not know of a "Fatal Flaw" that Fred Thompson would have. Some may say he started late. I guess the fact that many polls have him second, first in some. so I guess he wasn't late just smart. Mitt's Romney's flaw was that he was believed to be a flip flopper, I guess now he has company. However Romney was returning to what I believe were his real stances on the issues of the base. Rudy however is doing the opposite he has been a leader in the fight for Gun Control laws with Chuck Schumer, one of the biggest gun grabber's in the country. I guess now that Rudy has flipped on this issue the argument that moderate democrats will crossover to vote for him looks a little less likely. The statement that Rudy now has decided that, I should be able to defend my family in my own home, is hardly a strong endorsement of the 2nd Amendment. It is nice that as someone running for President he has allowed me this right?
The issue of Rudy initiating a lawsuit against Gun Mamufacturers is the most egregious example of big government gone wrong I have ever seen. The plan was to use the overwhelming power of the government to sue Gun Manufacturers out of business. The effects are still felt by law abiding citizens who pay more for guns and ammunition because of some of the smaller companies demise and higher costs of shipping. I am sure my friends that have been fighting the gun bans in Illinois are glad to hear they now have his help.
I hear the comment that people support Rudy because of 9/11, while I think he did a great job it does not mean he is the only candidate that is capable of taking the fight to the terrorists. It is not the place to stop when looking at a candidate, especially on such important issues our rights.
I remember Mike Frerichs took a real beating from someone on this site when he said his position on abortion had "evolved". I remember someone on here found that pretty unacceptable. (Someone who was on the payroll of Mike's opponent, not that it biased him in any way.) Surely, that same person couldn't now support Rudy and his newly "evolved" position on guns, could he??
Say it ain't so, Gordy! Say it ain't so!
I'm so disillusioned....
"I remember Mike Frerichs took a real beating from someone on this site when he said his position on abortion had "evolved". I remember someone on here found that pretty unacceptable."
Yep, that was me. As a candidate, Frerichs evolution on abortion, while disturbing in its transparency (just like Rudy's!) wasn't what made him unacceptable to me. He was unacceptable to me because I think he's too malleable, and I don't think he possesses the principles to represent our area well in Springfield - I thought he'd be too easy for Emil Jones to control, and his changing position on abortion was a symptom of that, He hasn't exactly disproven any of my fears about Emil Jones running roughshod over him, has he?
"(Someone who was on the payroll of Mike's opponent, not that it biased him in any way.) Surely, that same person couldn't now support Rudy and his newly "evolved" position on guns, could he??
Say it ain't so, Gordy! Say it ain't so!
I'm so disillusioned.... "
Well, at least give me a little credit for posting that I was actively begging for a flip-flop from Rudy on this issue. :-)
And of course I was biased against Frerichs. I never pretended otherwise. My beef with biased mainstream reporters isn't that they're biased, it's that they want their readers to believe that they have no biases, which is absolutely impossible. If you're disillusioned that I told everyone for 12 months what my biases were and you're just now confirming them, well...