Don't Know If I Can Believe Him


BluesStringer

Les Brers
I don't understand why everyone thinks it's ok to vote a former mayor into presidential office. He was a MAYOR! What qualifies him to lead this country?

I am however for shooting him out of a cannon.

As a leader, I think Rudy has proven himself quite admirably. I really don't see how anyone could fault him for his performance in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.

However, I also don't see how anyone could view him as a constitutional "originalist." His record, especially on 2nd Amendment issues, doesn't support that notion at all, and his current attempts to assert his status as such makes it clear to me that he can be just as phony and dishonest as any other run-of-the-mill politician.

He loses my support based on his record on issues that are important to me, not on his performance as mayor or D.A. or business owner, all three of which I think should work in his favor towards his qualifications to be President. I don't particularly want career politicians as my only choices for national office. Mayors or City Council members, business owners or even street-sweepers, anyone who can think and articulate a clear vision for America's future is fine with me, as long as that vision adheres strictly to an originalist view of what role government should have in our lives.

Blues
 

rabywk

New member
I don't particularly want career politicians as my only choices for national office. Mayors or City Council members, business owners or even street-sweepers, anyone who can think and articulate a clear vision for America's future is fine with me, as long as that vision adheres strictly to an originalist view of what role government should have in our lives.

Blues

Well there is Obama which is a Jr. Senator (not much political experiance at all) that was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and hasn't really done anything at all. I am still waiting for a nobody to come into the race and state here is what i stand for, if I don't accomplish it in 4 years or go against anything I am elected on then don't vote for me again!!!
 

BluesStringer

Les Brers
True 'nuff about Obama being inexperienced. However, I do think he articulates his positions pretty clearly, which is exactly why he could never earn my vote. I don't perceive his platform as having any basis whatsoever in originalist constitutional theory. That's what disqualifies him, not his inexperience.

Blues
 

ishi

New member
+1

That's a pretty sober analysis. Hardly any politicians in this election cycle are interested in preserving the constitution. Candidates on all sides are ready to gut the bill of rights, they just can't agree on which ones to destroy first.


True 'nuff about Obama being inexperienced. However, I do think he articulates his positions pretty clearly, which is exactly why he could never earn my vote. I don't perceive his platform as having any basis whatsoever in originalist constitutional theory. That's what disqualifies him, not his inexperience.

Blues
 

ishi

New member
He did a competent job as mayor for the few months remaining in his tenure as mayor, following the 9/11 disaster. However, there are plenty of competent mayors in the United States, and I don't see why his city getting attacked should be a reason to elect him president.

He may have a little more experience than his opponents, in using Terrorism to further his political career. I'd prefer our candidate to win on good domestic policies and adherence to the constitution. I'm not hearing any of that from Rudy.

I hear this all the time from him. What exactly did he do?
 

BluesStringer

Les Brers
As a leader, I think Rudy has proven himself quite admirably. I really don't see how anyone could fault him for his performance in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.
I hear this all the time from him. What exactly did he do?

Well, first of all, my statement has nothing whatsoever to do with what he says about himself. I've actually never heard him say this "all the time" or otherwise anyway. Regardless, the statement is based solely on my own perceptions and observations.

Secondly, this challenge sounds like it's coming from the perspective that I'm supporting Giuliani for President, which, clearly, I am not. This thread is about his qualifications for President, isn't it?

That said, to answer the question directly, he led. He was a calming influence, he delegated well, he was involved and he has faced every criticism that has been leveled at him in the intervening years. I am not a supporter of him for President, but I do believe in giving credit where credit is due. I don't cite his record on reducing crime in a credit-giving way, because one of the biggest reasons he was even marginally successful at it was his use of unconstitutional laws concerning gun ownership and gun uses. Even on that score though, he faces his criticisms and challenges head on. All in all, I find that quite admirable, even though I find the laws that he inherited and utilized unconstitutional and, frankly, reprehensible.

I guess my question would be, if one finds my statement that I think he handled himself quite admirably in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 invalid or inaccurate analysis, what didn't he do that you think he should've?

Blues
 
Last edited:

Bohemian

New member
Rudy Giuliani for President in 2008?

IF...

He wins the nomination...

Something I pray to god does not happen ever...

Which if we do not want to happen we need to vote in the primaries and encourage our friends, neighbors and peers, etc., to do the same...

Primaries statistically have terrible voter turn outs from all parties...

This is obviously a huge problem...

I personally think it is going to be Hillary "Billary" Clinton against whomever wins the republican nomination...

The two canidates that I think are the best to support the 2nd Amendment are Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee, problem with these two is it appears they do not currently have a big enough following to win the nomination; Ron Paul has another thing against him in that he comes off like a left wing nut job when he says bring all our troops home from every where in the world, stop helping anybody in any country for any reason and only worry about things that happen on U.S. soil...

Don't get me wrong at face value this sounds good, but the facts are that we have to take a proactive approach on terrorism (George W. Bush 1st President in U.S. History to have the intestinal fortitude to take a proactive approach on terrorism) and when a defenseless country or region is being annihilated by terrorists or starvation; I think we need to step up to the plate... Just like if you saw some woman being attacked, you would come to her aid armed or not... (preferably armed)

So with that said in my opinion Mike Huckabee would be the single best candidate; and in the debates thus far he comes off quite well and he has a proven track record when it comes to opposing gun control in any form...
But until now, Mike Huckabee was virtually unknown to much of the U.S. which is a problem for him; although if we can get the word around AND we vote in the primaries he could certainly do the job well.

Mike Huckabee's opposition if Newt Gingrich does not get into it would be Rudy as every body remembers how well Rudy handled things following 911 in NYC; and I commend him for that; when it comes to gun control he gets thumbs down based on his track record; unless it comes down to putting one of the democrats in the white house or Rudy...
He is definitely the lesser of two evils...

Mike Huckabee's opposition might also be Fred Thompson; but read up on both Newt Gingrich and Fred Thompson and you will find that they both have let the 2nd Amendment and gun owners down and have the record to prove it... Despite their obvious media support for the NRA and campaigning at local gun shows around the country...

To re-iterate only Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul have a 100% pro-gun record and Mike Huckabee will get my vote in the primary on January 19th, 2008 here in Nevada because of his other positions in addition to having a zero tolerance policy for 2nd amendment infringement of any kind; that I have been able to find thus far...

Semper Fidelis

Support the Amendment/Repeal of the Class III Weapons ban of civilian manufacture and ownership (FOPA/NFA 1986) (This is a great ongoing thread from 2004-2007)
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=117748&page=2

Mike Huckabee:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Mike_Huckabee.htm

http://www.mikehuckabee.com/

Ron Paul:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm

Link Removed

Newt Gingrich
http://www.ontheissues.org/Newt_Gingrich.htm

Link Removed

Fred Thompson:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Fred_Thompson.htm

Link Removed
 
Last edited:

BluesStringer

Les Brers
I'm also a huge supporter of Huckabee's. Not only is he great on 2nd Amendment issues, but he's really the only candidate who, every time I've ever seen him interviewed, gives The FairTax some exposure. I'm a volunteer for FairTax.org and went to both the Columbia, SC and Ames, IA rallies, both of which Mike Hucakbee spoke eloquently in favor of the plan. Rudy, on the other hand, not only opposes The FairTax, but when questioned on it, invariably spews either ignorant mistaken analysis or intentional misinformation about it. One is just about as bad as the other for a presidential candidate in my book.

I'll go no further off-topic, but I probably will start a FairTax thread here before long.

PS: Gingrich announced last night on Fox News that he's out of the race. Something about McCain/Feingold preventing him from legally working the campaign and American Solutions at the same time. I didn't catch the details.

Blues
 
Last edited:

doublenutz

New member
Actually Thompson's record is the most consistant and "Pro-Gun" of all the 2008 candidates. He voted 20 times out of 33 in-favor of Pro-Gun legislation and no candidate has a record that consistant and favorable. I think in the best of all worlds would be a Thompson/Huckabee ticket or even the reverse. But I think it is fair to say that Thompson has garnered so much momentum in a short time and Huckabee still has a ways to go to knock Giuliani off top that splitting the Conservative Republican vote between the two would surely place Giuliani out front,,, and I remain certain that is something nobody here wants to see.

I also believe that the only candidates that could successfully beat Billary are Fred and Rudy. I do not believe Huckabee could do it alone, and we must unite a successful effort to defeat Billary. The stategy to do that lies first in getting Fred to the front line and hoping that he can pick-up Huckabee as his running mate.


Just my .45 cents
 

Bohemian

New member
Actually Thompson's record is the most consistant and "Pro-Gun" of all the 2008 candidates. He voted 20 times out of 33 in-favor of Pro-Gun legislation and no candidate has a record that consistant and favorable. I think in the best of all worlds would be a Thompson/Huckabee ticket or even the reverse. But I think it is fair to say that Thompson has garnered so much momentum in a short time and Huckabee still has a ways to go to knock Giuliani off top that splitting the Conservative Republican vote between the two would surely place Giuliani out front,,, and I remain certain that is something nobody here wants to see.

I also believe that the only candidates that could successfully beat Billary are Fred and Rudy. I do not believe Huckabee could do it alone, and we must unite a successful effort to defeat Billary. The stategy to do that lies first in getting Fred to the front line and hoping that he can pick-up Huckabee as his running mate.


Just my .45 cents

With all due respect...
Fred would be better then any democrat canidate...
BUT...
Fred Thompson is NOT 100% pro-gun nor does he have a 100% pro-gun voting record...

Only Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee can claim that distinction from what I have been able to find thus far...

If you can find anything contrary to that I am sure that I am not alone in asking please show us...

In my opinion, you can not be considered a consistent pro-gun candidate if you have EVER voted anti-gun...

Semper Fidelis
 

doublenutz

New member
With all due respect...
Fred would be better then any democrat canidate...
BUT...
Fred Thompson is NOT 100% pro-gun nor does he have a 100% pro-gun voting record...

Only Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee can claim that distinction from what I have been able to find thus far...

If you can find anything contrary to that I am sure that I am not alone in asking please show us...

In my opinion, you can not be considered a consistent pro-gun candidate if you have EVER voted anti-gun...

Semper Fidelis

Sorry, but that is slightly inaccurate- Thompson is the only candidate that actually has a record voting and his record is clear and consistant. Out of 33 votes in the Senate he has 20 that are pro-gun.

Huckabee is a Governor (not a legislator) and although his position is pro-gun he actually has NO record for voting on anything and there is no way to really determine how he would vote on issues whereas Thompson record is clear and consistant. Ron Paul, as a congressman, also has many kudo's for his "SPONSORSHIP" of pro-second amendment positions on issues but to date I can find no actual voting record for Ron Paul. Again, Ron Paul's lack of an actual voting record on the issues gives no indication of how he would REALLY vote whereas Thompson's record is again very clear.

I posted this in the off topic area a few days ago... perhaps I should have posted it here instead.


This may or may not suprise most of you. Fred Thompson still gets my vote as he is Pro Second Amendment and Against Gun Control. Giuliani might as well get on board as a running mate with Hillary when it comes to our rights and Romney scares me too. Forget about the left leaning liberal Dems protecting your rights... we all know they are about big gun control and more taxes to control them.

Click Here>>> Link Removed


Once again, the idea is getting the right candidate with the most ability to defeat Giuliani first and then Billary second. It may be disapointing to hear but the reality is that Huckabee will not defeat Rudy Giuliani and Ron Paul, who admits himself, is way behind the front runners and not likey to even have a chance. Our only hope at this moment is Fred... if we further fracture the momentum that Fred has by pushing for candidates that clearly have not a chance of beating Rudy then LOOK OUT:eek: we're gonna be in for a helluva ride when it comes to our 2A rights and tampering.

OH and BTW... Semper Fi
 
Last edited:

Bohemian

New member
As Governor of Arkansas Mike Huckabee vetoed every anti-gun bill by the state legislation that came across his desk...

As Governor Mike made nationwide news when he publicly opposed Slick Willie Clinton on gun control when Slick-Wille was still in office (they are also both from the same town)

Mike Huckabee was the first Governor in the nation to have a conceal carry license.

Mike Huckabee also signed a law prohibiting frivolous lawsuits against gun makers and eased restrictions on concealed carry permit holders in Arkansas.

Mike Huckabee is a hunter.

Mike Huckabee is against gun manufacturer lawsuits.

Mike Huckabee signed SB 1080 no net loss of public hunting lands.

Mike Huckabee is consistently 100% pro-gun.

Mike Huckabee is a strong believer in and has a strong grasp of the 2nd Amendment.

Mike Huckabee Supports self-defense and the "Castle Doctrine".

The lists of Mike Huckabee pro-gun efforts goes on and on; there is no record of Mike Huckabee ever voting for or supporting any anti-gun effort...

Link Removed
http://www.ontheissues.org/Mike_Huckabee.htm
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_01_21-2007_01_27.shtml#1169537461
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1871639/posts
Link Removed

Ron Paul:
Ron Paul has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
Ron Paul received the nickname “Dr. No” in Congress for repeatedly casting “nay” votes, even on legislation with almost unanimous support from his Republican colleagues. Explaining why he opposes legislation that expands government power, funds federal spending, or reduces privacy: “I interpret through the eyes of the Constitution. If we don’t have direct authorization, I don’t vote for it, even if there are good intentions.”
http://gunowners.org/pres08/paul.htm
http://www.ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm
http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=BC031929
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_01_21-2007_01_27.shtml#1169537461
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1871639/posts

I still contend Mike Huckabee & Ron Paul have a 100% pro-gun voting and support record; whereas Fred Thompson does not...
Fred Thompson is referred to as "generally consistent" by the mainstream pro-gun lobbyists such as the NRA, GOA, SAF and David Koepel...
The NRA withdrew their support for Fred Thompson due to his anti-gun voting record...
Ron Paul is the only candidate whom still has NRA support...

In a unprecedented action the NRA has announced that it will soon be anouncing their support of the primary election candidate that they support...

This can only be one of two people; Ron Paul or Mike Huckabee...

By your own admission Fred Thompson has voted ANTI-GUN 13 TIMES; which is also a mater of record that supports Fred Thompson does NOT have a 100% pro-gun voting and support record...

Fred Thompson has been challenged to a one-on-one debate with Mike Huckabee, which thus far he has declined...

Fred Thompson's anti-gun "law and order" voting and support record is no secret...
Link Removed
http://www.ontheissues.org/Fred_Thompson.htm
http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=22003
http://conservativesagainstfred.wordpress.com/2007/06/11/fred-thompsons-anti-gun-senate-record/
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1871639/posts

IF Fred wins the nomination I will vote for him; to keep the more fanatical left wing democrat gun grabbers out like Billary Clinton; but I am voting for Mike Huckabee and the 2nd Amendment in the primaries...
 
Last edited:

Bohemian

New member
Mike Huckabee: Standing Tall For The Second Amendment

Mike Huckabee: Standing Tall For The Second Amendment
Link Removed
 

doublenutz

New member
Mike Huckabee: Standing Tall For The Second Amendment
Link Removed

You are missing my foundational point... which is-

RON PAUL and MIKE HUCKABEE have about as much chance of beating Giuliani as I do.

Now, we can further fracture our strongest supoort for the candidate that in reality has the most momentum and potential (Fred Thompson) for winning or we can capitulate to accept that Giuliani is our next potential President.

I am so hoping that we don't divide as Conservative 2A's over misunderstandings in these coming months because our mistakes and or divisions will cost us all dearly.

Think about it.
 
Last edited:

Bohemian

New member
Rudy, Fred, Mitt, John have taken major hits lately because one they tried to b.s. the NRA at the Celebration of American Values Conference:
Link Removed

AND two they all failed to show up at the last Republican debate targeting minority Black and Latino voters and their issues...
THAT went over like a fart in Church...

True enough Mike Huckabee is not in the top tier candidate's above because they have raised more money because most of the polls are based on the money they have raised; but Mike Huckabee is currently the top tier-two candidate in that game...

All the top-tier candidates fail the "Goldwater test" and the "Reagan test"...
Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee win those...

With the top tier canidates shooting themselves in the foot on the pivotal issues and their anti-gun records they are trying to hide; either Huckabee or Paul could pull it out...

With every debate that the top tier candidate show up for or do not show up for Huckabee and Paul impress the public and move up in the polls...

The current top-tier candidates are there presently because of the name-face recognition factor...

The public is quickly learning whom Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee are; if you have been to a gun show lately you might think Ron Paul was some kind of cult figure with the popularity he has...

Anything can happen until the primaries...

With historically depressing voter turn out at the primaries we will truly have to be hopeful that American citizens whom value their 2nd amendment rights look at all where their candidate is on all the issues and their track record; and with myself first and foremost is the 2nd amendment, once bitten twice shy they say...

Mike Huckabee or Ron Paul certainly have the chance to become the dark-horse republican nominee...

Here's one for you...
No mayor has ever gone on to win the nomination or the Presidency...
Polls or money or what have you; Rudy is to liberal to get the Republican nomination in my opinion...

To show you how quickly things can change in the primaries:
on Jan 24, 2000 Bush had 41% McCain had 5% Iowa
On Jan 26, 2000 Bush had 30% McCain had 49% New Hampshire

As we all know McCain lost in the end why? because he like Rudy is too liberal, too soft on immigration and caved on the 2nd amendment many times, the public found out and he dropped out...

A quick look at the Iowa Polls show Mike Huckabee steadily climbing in the polls and now ahead of John McCain and has been trading places with Fred Thompson...
http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/iowa.html

And in the New Hampshire Polls it has Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul neck and neck and on Fred Thompson's heels...
Link Removed

With Newt Gingrich bailing yesterday there is sure to be a dramatic shift in the polls as well...
He had a huge following...
Most Newt Gingrich supporters are now banking on Mike Huckabee...

Money can not win elections; if it could Mitt would be ahead of everybody on the republican end and Edwards on the democrat end...

Not to long ago The polls had a Kerry-Edwards ticket killing Bush-Cheney in money and everything else; and it turned out to be the biggest victory margin in U.S. history for the underdogs...

I can not in good conscience support Fred Thompson unless he wins the primary and then only to keep gun grabbing Billary & Slick-Willie out of the White house; because Fred has voted and supported anti-gun issues...

Two of the top-tier republicans are too liberal for conservatives to accept; that would obviously be Rudy & John...
That leaves Mitt whom has a anti-gun control history and has clearly stated he would bring back the assault weapons ban!
nix Mitt...
That leaves Fred Thompson, Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul...

Everybody loves Ron Paul on the 2nd amendment; but when it comes to the war on terrorism he has stated that he is the anti-war candidate and he sounds pretty radical when it comes to sequestering the united states from the rest of the world... Although that could get him the democrat vote for those democrats that detest Billary... and are of the cut-n-run mentality; It will not get him the republican vote...

Now we are left with a Fred-Mike primary...

too close to call by most, I say stick with the proven 2nd amendment track record; "I like Mike"

visit Mike Huckabee's site:
http://www.mikehuckabee.com/
 
Last edited:

doublenutz

New member
AND two they all failed to show up at the last Republican debate targeting minority Black and Latino voters and their issues...

This Black American can see beyond those debates which IMHO are pretty much worthless and crowded with 30 second sound bites that usually don't inspire me any.

I am rolling with Fred becuase he is a conservative front runner that can beat Giuliani. I don't want to take a chance on sacking his momentum and ending up with Rudy. I will hope for a Huckabee as a Thompson running mate.

There's very little room for mistakes coming up in this next election and if Giuliani were our only choice as a Republican than I fear we are in for for terrible years...

Two of the top-tier republicans are too liberal for conservatives to accept; that would obviously be Rudy & John...
That leaves Mitt whom has a anti-gun control history and has clearly stated he would bring back the assault weapons ban!
nix Mitt...
That leaves Fred Thompson, Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul...

Everybody loves Ron Paul on the 2nd amendment; but when it comes to the war on terrorism he has stated that he is the anti-war candidate and he sounds pretty radical when it comes to sequestering the united states from the rest of the world... Although that could get him the democrat vote for those democrats that detest Billary... and are of the cut-n-run mentality; It will not get him the republican vote...

Now we are left with a Fred-Mike primary...

Excellent points here and I agree
 
Last edited:

doublenutz

New member
Giuliani Bobs and Weaves on Gun Control Record

Link Removed

FOX News Election Coverage


FOXNEWS.COM HOME Giuliani Bobs and Weaves on Gun Control Record
Friday, September 28, 2007
By John R. Lott Jr.
foxnews_story.gif



Rudy Giuliani had a monumental task last Friday. Going before the NRA, Giuliani wanted to alleviate gun owners' fears that he would take away their ability to use guns to defend themselves.

Some media suggested an even more lofty goal: "it is possible that the NRA would endorse Giuliani."

Surely Giuliani said many comforting things. He talked about the Second Amendment protecting individual rights. And he now disavows the lawsuits against the gun makers-- something that he himself initiated, but that he says went off course and went in directions with which he disagreed.
For good measure, Giuliani also invoked his time in the Reagan Justice Department a quarter of a century ago and Reagan’s defense of gun rights as evidence of his own support.

For many, the bottom line is, as the New York Times claimed, "that he opposes new restrictions on gun ownership."

The Boston Globe interpreted Giuliani as pledging "he would punish gun-toting criminals harshly while leaving law-abiding gun owners alone."
But this is the same Giuliani who six years ago supported Federal gun licensing and seven years ago said that 86 to 88 percent of the guns sold in the United States should not be sold because gun makers "would have to know that they are supplying an illegal market."

This is the same person who sued gun makers so that the city could recoup its costs of dealing with crime, that openly broke with the Reagan administration during congressional testimony on a gun control bill.
Some of those present at the NRA meeting were moved by Giuliani’s comments. Giuliani apparently had at least neutralized their concerns. Yet, a careful reading of Giuliani’s speech finds it filled with caveats.
Take his answer to a question about gun control:

"My position is the law should be left the way it is now. Given the level of crime in this country, I think the emphasis and the energy should be spent on enforcing the laws that presently exist, and if changes in the law are necessary later, that'll respond to other social conditions.

"I think the single most important thing that the next president has to do is to organize an effort in the Department of Justice and with state and local law enforcement to work in a cooperative way to enforce the laws that presently exist. After we do that, and we see the impact of that, then we can take a look at whether new laws are necessary; they may or may not be. "

"Given the level of crime in this country?" Would his position change if crime increased? It would certainly seem so. Surely Giuliani has frequently claimed that gun control reduces crime. Indeed, he has claimed that most of the reduction in New York City’s crime rate during the 1990s was due to gun control: "the single biggest connection between violent crime and an increase in violent crime is the presence of guns in your society...the more guns you take out of society, the more you are going to reduce murder. The less guns you take out of society, the more it is going to go up."
Giuliani is justifiably proud of New York City’s dramatic reductions in violent crime during the 1990s, but his claim that "the single biggest" factor was taking guns off the street is weak, to say the least. There is no academic research by economists or criminologists that indicates that gun control mattered at all.

There are other more obvious explanations, especially the massive increase in full- time sworn police officers. The number grew from 26,844 in 1990 to 39,779 by 2000, roughly five times faster than in other big cities. New York City also improved its police department by raising hiring standards and increasing officer pay, What about Giuliani’s statement, "After we do that . . . we can take a look at whether new laws?" The only restriction that this implies is that the Federal and state governments must first do what they can to reduce crime. After that, all restrictions are off.

Giuliani’s statement on lawsuits against gun makers is no more comforting. He now disavows the lawsuits because of "twists and turns I disagree with." But there is absolutely no mention about what these changes were. His own statements, when originally announcing New York City’s lawsuit, contained a laundry list of complaints. Indeed, his claims seemed the same as those in other city lawsuits.

Possibly, Giuliani’s opinions on the Second Amendment were really affected by Judge Laurence Silberman’s recent court decision striking down Washington D.C.’s gun ban. Silberman did make a persuasive case that the Second Amendment does guarantee an individual right. But Giuliani has frequently pointed out that constitutionally protected rights still allow “reasonable” regulations to accomplish some other goal, such as public safety.
Despite the assurances of the press, Giuliani clearly did not say that he would oppose new gun laws. Compared to what conservatives call the Link Removed by Fred Thompson, Giuliani’s presentation just didn’t cut it.

With the nation at war, Republicans possibly have more important things to care about than gun control. But Giuliani’s image as a straight shooter risks being damaged by all the bobbing and weaving that he is doing over gun control.

John Lott is the author of the book "Freedomnomics," and is a Senior Research Scientist at the University of Maryland.
 

doublenutz

New member
Fred Thompson Wows 'Em At the NRA Convention

Link Removed

Going in, Rudy Giuliani was going to have a tall order to get a warm welcome from the NRA. Fred Thompson just made that harder by going up on the stage and giving a just about flawless performance. He repeats the line about Americans sacrificing more blood for other countries' freedom than for any other country; I can't help but wonder if it's a jab at the Washington Post for critiquing it and arguing the Soviet Union might rival that claim.

He got a standing ovation at his finish, and then he did a brief Q & A.
"Some believe that the Second Amendment has different meanings in different places, and that the gun rights of citizens in, say, New York City and Chicago can restricted more than the gun rights of those in Tennessee and Montana. Do you agree?"

Thompson responds with a deep, rumbling, slow, "Noooope." Then he follows with absolute catnip for gun owners: "It's never seemed to me to be coincidental that the places that have the highest crime rates tend to be the places that have the most restrictions on gun ownership in America."

Asked about gun shows, he calls the "part of Americana... There's always been an effort on the other side to go after something high profile or particularly vulnerable, an easy target, but I've always resisted that."
Will he appoint an Attorney General who shares his opinion of the Second Amendment. "Yes." More applause. "I think we're winning on the interpretation of the Second Amendment. I have a complicated position on this: The Constitution means what it says." He gets another standing ovation.

From my regular appearances on Link Removed, I think I have a pretty good idea of what gun owners want to hear from a presidential candidate; Fred Thompson gave 'em pretty much their ideal.

I would also note that perhaps Thompson ate his Wheaties this morning, because he didn't seem tired or sleepy at all.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,437
Messages
623,674
Members
74,276
Latest member
ForwardUntilDawn
Top