The Candidates
In advance of the second debate later tonight, this video surfaces of Rudy discussing the virtues of gun control and vocally opposing the NRA from 1995. Notice the lack of any talk of federalism here, in fact he specifically calls for a national gun control law (via Soren Dayton):
This is quite extraordinary.
May 15th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
If Rudy ever gets over the abortion hurdle (I doubt it), he will be confronted by the immigration and the 2nd ammendment hurdles. It looks like gay marriage will become an issue again with lawsuits being brought by homosexual couples challenging state laws. Sorry Rudy, but the way things play out you could become a non-factor before Iowa because they will realize that you are more like a 50% friend instead of the 80% you claim.
I don’t see someone who is against so many base issues can win. He is in-line on tax cuts and Iraq/GWOT, but on most other big issues he is not just behind enemy lines, he is on the front lines and fighting against the base.
Rudy has to prove he has a better plan for Iraq and that he will be better on the GWOT than any other candidate. (I don’t think he will be able to do this since all four frontrunners have almost the same position.) He also has to maintain his aura of “electability”. My prediction is that as he is attacked by his competitors on these red meat issues he will drop and the title of most electable will be claimed by someone else as the base says to themselves I could never vote for this man.
May 15th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
Ouch. Hopefully Giuliani has “flipflopped” or “converted” (pick your term) on this issue.
May 15th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
Rudy’s said much worse things on the second amendment. Wonder if they were caught on tape. The parts of this video that stick, are the CLEAR wish for national gun control he expresses. Strangely, thus far Rudy has been attempting to run to the right of Romney by simply stating “I won’t impose new gun laws”. Romney still holds his gun control positions. As if it hadn’t already been thoroughly repudiated, but this clearly answers the most obvious question. Namely, will Rudy refrain from enacting new gun control laws because he doesn’t think we need them, or because he wants to pander to the conservative base? Anyone who has still has questions about that answer is jumping through mental hoops.
May 15th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
He is for state rights… pretty simple
May 15th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
This isn’t a states rights issue and Rudy is NOT one of us. I have been saying that for a while now. He isn’t really much different than Bloomberg.
May 15th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
I agree with #1
I will not vote for Rudy Gulianni for President in any General election.
May 15th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
I will vote for Rudy GIULIANI for President in any General Election.
May 15th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
sorry about the spelling
May 15th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
This is 12 YEARS AGO… my god, judge this man for who he is now… I can only remeber how pro-Rudy you all were on 9/11…. This man is a great leader and he is NOT taking anyones guns away. He simply wants state rights for gun control.
May 15th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Pretty weak LJ,
So Rudy wishes to enforce already existing gun laws. And the big deal is???? He believes that the Constitution of the United States grants every citizen the “right to bear arms”. He also believes however, that that right does not extend to assault rifles such as M-16s, AK-47s and AK-74s. He also wants every single person who wishes to purchase a gun, to go through a mandatory 10 day waiting period, so that a thorough and accurate background check can be carried out. He wants every citizen who owns a gun to be entered into a national registry, with their names, addresses and serial numbers of their fire arms.
I’m still waiting to hear what is so “radical” and “anti-gun” about Mayor Giuliani’s 2nd Amendment views? The over-whelming majority of the country believes the same exact things. Polling, of all kinds, proves that to be true. This is a non-issue. Well, except for the “gun” people in Iowa and South Carolina. The “gun” folks
are just as adamant and just as much single issue as “abortion” voters. Overwhelmingly, the country is in favor of applying our already existing gun control laws.
IF the country as a whole actually applied and ENFORCED our already existing gun control laws, there would be no need for the Mayor to even mention a national gun control law. But we don’t. Because mandatory waiting periods and preventing a man from buying 12 M-16s to “protect his family” is, at least to some folks, Unconstitutional. I’m sorry, but if you need an assault rifle to hunt with, you’re a horrible shot. If you need an assault rifle to “protect your family”, move to Beirut, you’ll obviously be safer.
May 15th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
LJ no use trying to talk the true believers out of their celebrity candidate. They don’t care that he has no state or federal gov’t experience. A Mayor who hasn’t reached any other office surely doesn’t qualify as minimum presidential material… unless you just want a celebrity candidate.
May 15th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
VERY WELL SAID GEOFF…. this is getting nuts… Why are Republicans attacking this man who they onced all loved, but because their own candidates are doing well in the polls, they try to make something out of nothing.
May 15th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
There is absolutely NOTHING in this video that is “extraordinary”. I don’t know of one moderate friend of mine, or conservative friend of mine for that matter, who would find anything in this video troubling.
May 15th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
LOL ECON GRAD…. New York City had 7.1 millin people in it when he took office….. go compare that number to the 50 states….
May 15th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
Yeah, I’m sure Giuliani is going to be pushing gun control and make that a big part of his administration. Get real! Be pragmatic, and start thinking rationally.
May 15th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
A Mayor… any mayor has less authority than almost any governor. A New York Mayor can’t call out the national guard or do much of anything beyond local issues. Obviously not a large enough position to warrant moving straight to the Presidency.
If I thought Giuliani could handle being President I wouldn’t be so opposed to his candidacy.
May 15th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
Econ,
“They don’t care that he has no state or federal gov’t experience.”
Please, aside from the large states (CA, NY, TX, FL, NJ etc.) tell me of states who have larger and more diverse populations tha NYC? Tell me about a state with a larger budget than NYC? Tell me about a state with larger or more complicated problems that NYC? You can’t. Because it doesn’t exist. The Mayor of NYC, when you really sit back and look at the numbers, is truly a Governor. From everything to crime, budget, population, logistics, health care, etc. et.c The Mayor of NYC confronts more diverse and complicated problems in a week
than most Governors do in a month.
Does that qualify him to be President? That’s up to you. But to say he has no experience is just ignorant.
May 15th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
(#9) “I can only remeber how pro-Rudy you all were on 9/11″
At some point people will wonder if there is anything more to Rudy than his celebrity status in the wake of those horrible attacks. Whenever he is asked about abortion, gun control, immigration, etc he & his supporters are reduced to saying “strong leader 9/11″.
May 15th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
So who in the hell do you want to be the GOP nominee????
May 15th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
Geoff (#17) “Mayor of NYC, when you really sit back and look at the numbers, is truly a Governor.”
Quick, someone call Spitzer’s office and tell him that the position of Governor of New York is no longer required, as Bloomberg’s basically doing his job already.
May 15th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
Any of the other candidates are acceptable to me. I’d not for Rudy and I would vote for his opponent.
May 15th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
I think this website should be renamed http://www.raceagainstrudy2008.com…. or maybe http://www.raceOMGILOVEMITTROMNEY42008.com
May 15th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
Econ Grad… you might want to go back to school… you didn’t learn much.
You would rather vote for Hillary who is 100% against you, over Rudy who is 90% with you? wow
I don’t have a problem with any of the other candidates either, however, they can’t win the big one.
May 15th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
The website owner is a Rudy supporter. He just lets the majority of voters that oppose Rudy on the comment boards. That’s an admirable position for Kavon to take given how strongly he supports Rudy.
May 15th, 2007 at 6:48 pm
Rudy is at best 50% with me. Hillary’s at best 30%. It’s not a difference worth voting over.
May 15th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
Well, atleast I will know who to blame when my taxes go up.
May 15th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
What don’t you agree with?
Fiscal Discipline
Before Rudy was elected Mayor, tax-and-spend policies created billion-dollar deficits and led to the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs in New York City. Rudy restored fiscal discipline by controlling spending and cutting wasteful programs. He cut the size of city-funded government bureaucracy by nearly 20% - excluding the number of cops on the street and teachers in the classroom. Rudy’s record proves he can deliver results and return fiscal discipline to the federal government.
Cutting Taxes
Rudy is the real fiscal conservative in the race. He cut taxes 23 times in New York and turned a $2.3 billion budget deficit into a multi-billion dollar surplus, while balancing the city’s budget. Because he turned his conservative principles into action, New York City taxpayers saved more than $9 billion in taxes and enjoyed their lowest tax burden in decades, while the economy grew and city government saw its revenues increase from the lower tax rates. Rudy Giuliani believes in supply-side economics, because he did it and he saw it work.
Winning the War on Terror
Rudy Giuliani believes winning the war on terror is the great responsibility of our generation. America cannot afford to go back to the days of playing defense, with inconsistent responses to terrorist attacks, because weakness only encourages aggression. Americans want peace. We’re at war not because we want to be, but because the terrorists declared war on us - well before the attacks of September 11th. Rudy understands that freedom is going to win this war of ideas. America will win the war on terror.
Iraq
Like all Americans, Rudy Giuliani prays for the success of our troops in Iraq and their safe return home. But he believes setting an artificial timetable for withdrawal from Iraq now would be a terrible mistake, because it would only embolden our enemies. Iraq is only one front in the larger war on terror, and failure there would lead to a broader and bloodier regional conflict in the near future. Building an accountable Iraq will assist in reducing the threat of terrorism.
Public Safety
Before Rudy became Mayor, New York City was averaging close to 2,000 murders a year and more than 11,000 major crimes per week. He put more cops on the street and more criminals in jail. He cut crime in half and reduced murders by two-thirds. He improved response times in the Fire Department and created the Office of Emergency Management. Rudy improved the quality of life for all citizens and turned New York into the safest large city in America, according to FBI crime statistics.
Judges
Rudy Giuliani served as the third highest ranking official in Ronald Reagan’s Justice Department, worked as a US Attorney, and argued cases before the Supreme Court. He understands the responsibility the President has to appoint and nominate federal judges. The kind of judges he has said he would appoint are strict constructionists like Justices Scalia, Roberts and Alito principled individuals who can be trusted to respect the Constitution as it is written, rather than attempting to legislate from the bench.
Education
As Mayor, Rudy Giuliani worked to reform the nation’s largest public school system, with over 1 million school children. He increased school funding and hired new teachers, while insisting on reforms that ended social promotion, abolished principal tenure, and created a Charter School Fund. Rudy is also a strong supporter of school choice, believing that it is one of the great civil rights issues of our time.
Abortion
Rudy Giuliani supports reasonable restrictions on abortion such as parental notification with a judicial bypass and a ban on partial birth abortion except when the life of the mother is at stake. He’s proud that adoptions increased 66% while abortions decreased over 16% in New York City when he was Mayor. But Rudy understands that this is a deeply personal moral dilemma, and people of good conscience can disagree respectfully.
Second Amendment
Rudy Giuliani is a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. When he was Mayor of a city suffering an average of almost 2000 murders a year, he protected people by getting illegal handguns out of the hands of criminals. As a result, shootings fell by 72% and the murder rate was cut by two-thirds. But Rudy understands that what works in New York doesn’t necessarily work in Mississippi or Montana.
Marriage
Rudy Giuliani believes marriage is between a man and a woman. He does not - and has never - supported gay marriage. But he believes in equal rights under law for all Americans. That’s why he supports domestic partnerships that provide stability for committed partners in important legal and personal matters, while preserving the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman.
Save & Share Digg Google Facebook del.icio.us RSS Email
May 15th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
He believes that the Constitution of the United States grants every citizen the “right to bear arms”. He also believes however, that that right does not extend to assault rifles such as M-16s, AK-47s and AK-74s. He also wants every single person who wishes to purchase a gun, to go through a mandatory 10 day waiting period, so that a thorough and accurate background check can be carried out. He wants every citizen who owns a gun to be entered into a national registry, with their names, addresses and serial numbers of their fire arms.
That’s better than Giuliani’s actual position. That said, its a terrible position. You want the government to have every gun owner in the country on file?!? You seriously need to meet some conservatives some time if you think this kind of position will fly.
May 15th, 2007 at 6:56 pm
Jake,
give me a break. LJ, who posted this, is a McCainiac and if you check the archives, the posts have followed the national news and the GOP blog headlines. I think you are really upset that Giuliani has had a bad couple of weeks while Romney has had a good couple of weeks. There are plenty of negative stories about Romney, McCain and Thompson.
Geoff,
Your friends obviously aren’t some of the 80 million gun owners in the US. I love how people say me and my friends think this and then assume that the rest of the party or country must be the same. For millions people abortion and gay marriage are the only reason they vote. For millions more gun rights are a make or break issue. The same is true the past year with regard to immigration.
Just the same way for you and your friends it might be taxes, national defense, free trade or some other issue or range of issues.
May 15th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
Dskinner… I’m not upset at all… I think it is just uncalled for…. My candidate is polling in the 30’s while Romney is getting around 8%… wow.
Guns are not an issue for Rudy… he simply wants state rights…
He is running on national security and the economy.
May 15th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
Actually Jake only one poll has shown Rudy in the 30’s in the last few weeks. Every other poll has Rudy at 28% or less.
May 15th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
What kind of logic is that? If a candidate is in the lead then no negative stories can be posted. If a candidate is trailing no positve stories can be posted. That makes about as much sense as refuting every Giuliani argument with “he is the only electable candidate” instead of with rational explanation of negatives combined with compelling reasons why he is the best candidate.
I know what Rudy’s position is now, but this video and many others clearly show that in the past Rudy was slightly to the right of Rosie O’Donnell on gun control. He should explain why he has moved to the middle. (The middle position that he has moved to still isn’t good enough for many GOP voters)
I know what Rudy is running on and IMO he will be no better on national security than any of the other 4 and he won’t be as good as Romney on the economy. You can feel differently, but even if I wasn’t a social conservative I would still favor Romney, who I believe is easily the best GOP candidate on domestic issues including the economy.
May 15th, 2007 at 7:14 pm
Dskinner as a voter not backing a candidate would you tell me why Romney would be best on specifically domestic issues?
Not a gotcha but I’m just interested because there’s often more heat than light in these discussions. A lot of propaganda too.
May 15th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
Romney is the best at reducing big-government. He cut spending at the Olympics & MA. As a micro-manager he would be good at identifying waste.
Romney is the best of the big 3 when it comes to social issues, if you trust his recent conversion.
May 15th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
JayPe…. go read what the Club for Growth had to say about Rudy, then come back and tell me who is the best at reducing big-govt….
PS… Romney Care
May 15th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
Was Rudy in charge of NYC entire budget, or did Pataki have some input?
May 15th, 2007 at 7:27 pm
I notice the Rudy supporters have had to drop crowing about Intrade. Good thing I never believed in it or I might think Rudy slipping into second place meant something.
May 15th, 2007 at 7:30 pm
Where has Rudy moved into second? He is up anywhere from 8 to 20 points nationally.
May 15th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
JayPe. go read what the Club for Growth had to say about Rudy, then come back and tell me who is the best at reducing big-govt.
Ryan Sager reports that the Club for Growth report ignored most of Giuliani’s budget busting second term. OH, well.
May 15th, 2007 at 7:34 pm
I still personally think this is a pretty insignificant issue for Rudy and a feeble attempt at deflection by LJ.
McCain is not only a proponent, but the architect behind amnesty for illegals and clamping down on 1st Amendment Rights in the McCain-Kennedy Immigration Bill and McCain-Feingold legislation, respectively. McCain is not only at odds with the base over these issues, but is attempting to flip his position on both issues, even though he was the co-author of both pieces of horrible legislation.
But, instead of talking about McCain (Which we never seem to do on this site) lets talk about Rudy and guns, when he is in agreement with the majority of the American people, except for the “pry my gun from my cold dead hands folks). Does Rudy really want to “pry their guns away”? Of course not! Does he want sensible, practical gun control in America? Absolutely.
Henry,
“That’s better than Giuliani’s actual position. That said, it’s a terrible position. You want the government to have every gun owner in the country on file?!? You seriously need to meet some conservatives some time if you think this kind of position will fly.”
I’ve been a conservative, small government, pro-2nd Amendment guy my whole entire life. What exactly would be wrong with a national gun registry?
May 15th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
Geoff (#40), how can you be both a small government conservative and support a national gun registry?
May 15th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
You can’t be a gun-rights conservative and support a national gun registry. That’s like item #1 on the gun control agenda.
May 15th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
The much touted Intrade betting contracts are where Rudy has slipped to second. However I don’t put any credence in them this early.
May 15th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
In my opinion, he is the most competent to implement the common principles that the candidates share. He also has espoused many pro-business and pro-economic positions that other candidates have yet to do.
He also is the only candidate to sign Grover Norquists the “No new taxes pledge”. He has pledged to veto budgets that don’t cut discretionary spending by inflation minus 1%. His healthcare reform, while not perfect is by far the best thing proposed yet and if we don’t implement a free market system the Dems will implement a socialist one. He is tough on immigration, but I believe more capable of enacting a solution than Tancredo or Hunter. He is the only one I have heard say he will reform the tort system. He also has so much experience from his business career that I think he will best handle any new challenges of inflation or recession. He wants to cut taxes on savings and investment for the middle class. He has shown the ability to quickly turnaround organizations that are in trouble financially. (100s of businesses, the Olympics, and Massachusetts) He did it in Massachusetts by reforming and cutting government without raising taxes.
I don’t think any other candidate has even close to this experience actually making things happen. From what I understand Rudy didn’t do so great with his budget in NY.
May 15th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
Geoff,
The main problem with a national gun registry, Geoff, is that the second amendment was originally adopted precisely because the founders of this country had a deep distrust of government, and feared that tinpot governments would deprive them of their arms. The second amendment was created as much as a protection AGAINST the government, as it is against criminals. If you have a national gun registry, the very body politick you intended to protect yourself against, knows precisely what they need to do to disarm you. And even beyond this, non-law abiding citizens AREN’T going to register their guns, anymore then they follow laws banning assault weapons. Criminals commit crimes. And there’s no real need to worry about non-criminals having “dangerous” guns.
May 15th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
“Geoff (#40), how can you be both a small government conservative and support a national gun registry?”
Well, it’s pretty simple. A National Gun Registry does not infringe upon anyone’s 2nd Amendment Right to bear arms. A national gun registry allows federal and state authorities easy access to who owns weapons, whose had a weapon stolen that could be used in a crime, etc. etc. The list goes on and on.
The argument FOR a National Gun Registry is self-explanatory, at least in my opinion. Now, the government against one, is another story entirely. If it doesn’t infringe on anyone’s Constitutional Rights, why shouldn’t it be implemented?
May 15th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
Because citizens need to be able to overthrow the gov’t if it starts restricting rights. If the government knows who has guns it gives them an edge if they become tyrannical.
May 15th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
Have all Giuliani supporters always supported a National Gun Registry - or are they doing so now in response to the candidates views?
Genuine question, I’m curious.
May 15th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
Matt,
“Criminals commit crimes. And there’s no real need to worry about non-criminals having “dangerous” guns.”
This statement is as ludicrous as it is ignorant. If Assault Weapons are sold in gun stores, then ANYONE over the age of 21, has access to them. ANYONE. The illegal immigration and identity theft epidemics in this country has proven how easy it is to become someone you aren’t, and people willing to commit crimes with these weapons are willing to steal someone’s identity to purchase such a weapon. One needs a fire arm to hunt and protect one’s family. Granted. THAT is what the 2nd Amendment guarantees. One DOES NOT need an assault rifle. If you’re neighborhood is that bad, move. If you need one to hunt, take some more target practice.
May 15th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
Geoff,
I think a National Gun Registry is very possibly unconstitutional. If your opinion of the constitution suggests that such a measure clearly isn’t unconstitutional, then it’s not terribly surprising you’re a Rudy supporter. Those who feel the constitution should be interpreted in light of it’s original meaning, believe that across the board. And it’s not surprising that those who are eager to pick and choose what portions of original meaning they choose to uphold are sticking together.
May 15th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
Geoff (#40), notice I didn’t challenge your support of the Second Amendment. I challenged your claim to being a small government conservative and simultaneously supporting a national gun registry. I agree with you that a gun registry in itself doesn’t infringe on the right to own arms. But a national gun registry is an intrusive, bureaucracy-building entity which is anything but compatible with small government.
In other words, you don’t seem to be a small government conservative. I’m sure this is one area where ThatLibertarianGuy/David B and I agree.
May 15th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
Econ,
“Because citizens need to be able to overthrow the gov’t if it starts restricting rights. If the government knows who has guns it gives them an edge if they become tyrannical.”
Do you really believe that? Even if Bush were some tyrannical despot, there would be absolutely NO WAY for the people to over throw the government. Its a great idea to talk about. But in “reality” there would be no way.
May 15th, 2007 at 7:54 pm
Geoff,
I’m personally in favor of background checks. I would have likely supported the Brady Bill. We already have instant background checks with perhaps the exception of guns sold at gun shows. Not ANYONE can buy them. If the current law is enforced, criminals can’t buy them, legally, the mentally insane can’t buy them, etc.
May 15th, 2007 at 7:54 pm
Matt,
“Those who feel the constitution should be interpreted in light of it’s original meaning, believe that across the board. And it’s not surprising that those who are eager to pick and choose what portions of original meaning they choose to uphold are sticking together.”
Ridiculous. Of course you can’t argue against a National Gun Registry based solely upon its merits, because you know that such a registry does NOTHING to deprive anyone of their 2nd Amendment rights.
May 15th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
Geoff,
I’ve already presented the argument against a national gun registry. The second amendment was meant, in large part, to allow citizens to protect themselves against a despotic government. If the government knows what ALL your weapons are, that evaporates.
May 15th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
JF,
“But a national gun registry is an intrusive, bureaucracy-building entity which is anything but compatible with small government.”
That’s simply untrue. A national gun registry is as much a “big government” entity as your driver’s license. It’s simply a data base of information that can be accessed by federal and state authorities if a crime involving a fire arm is committed. It would be “Big Government” when that data base turns into the FBI knocking on your door and demanding your gun. THAT is big government intrusion. A National Registry is simply prevention.
May 15th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
Geoff (#56), do you know how large the DMV is? Please, stop digging.
May 15th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
Matt,
“I’ve already presented the argument against a national gun registry. The second amendment was meant, in large part, to allow citizens to protect themselves against a despotic government.”
To some extent you are correct. But the fundamental intention of the 2nd Amendment is to give citizens the right to protect themselves and their families. Basically, this gave people on the “frontier” the right to hunt and keep their families safe from Indians and vandals. So, if you really want to put it into the context of the founding fathers, then at least be historically honest.
Moreover, if it doesn’t infringe on one’s rights, there’s nothing wrong with it.
May 15th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
JF,
“do you know how large the DMV is? Please, stop digging.”
Are you arguing AGAINST the DMV? That’s like arguing against Social Security or the United States Army.
May 15th, 2007 at 8:06 pm
Geoff,
Even assuming you’re correct, and I think that’s deeply flawed historical analysis, there are certainly plenty of things wrong with many laws that don’t happen to be unconstitutional. Taxing people doesn’t infringe on their “rights” either. Is there nothing wrong with raising taxes?
May 15th, 2007 at 8:09 pm
Geoff (#59), that’s funny, because small government conservatives are against the DMV, social security, and possibly the army (depending on which libertarian faction you belong to). I’m not a small government conservative and never claimed to be one. You are the one who stuck his neck out, so either you’re a small government conservative and oppose the registry, or you’re not a small government conservative. I don’t know why you called yourself that.
May 16th, 2007 at 12:36 am
Good point was made by Pat Cadell tonite on the FOX after debate interviews.
In the Democrat debates, all the candidates make sure they take a slam at President Bush or some other Administration official or the Republicans in Congress.So far,for the Republicans, only Rudy has hit a Dem candidates position on something( tonite on Hillary’s attack on our economic system)Our guys are so preoccupied with defending their positions or critising their opponents, they are missing opportunities to take some good slams at the leading Dems positions on the War ,the economy and the culture.
Although competing against each other, the Dems never mis an opportunity to slam Republicans. This,with the aid of the MSM, has helped to push GOP candidate poll numbers down against them.
Lets face it . The Dems are better street fighters than our guys and our party. They are focused on the NATIONAL ELECTION, not just the primaries!
It’s time for our guys to start playing hard ball. Let them follow Rudy’s lead. Start slamming the Dems as much as they slam each other. Start letting voters know the choice they face if any of these Dems are elected. Start exposing their leftist positions NOW! Push up their negatives. This will help whoever becomes our nominee have a better chance in the General next November.