pageok
pageok
pageok
Beware Rudy's Reign?

The Cato Institute's David Boaz thinks Rudy Giuliani would be a most un-libertarian president, particularly given the expansion of executive power under President Bush.

Throughout his career, Giuliani has displayed an authoritarian streak that would be all the more problematic in a man who would assume executive powers vastly expanded by President Bush. . . .

Giuliani's view of power would be dangerous at any time, but especially after two terms of relentless Bush efforts to weaken the constitutional checks and balances that safeguard our liberty.

a bean:
Surely this would involve some introspection on which of his actions were authoritarian.

Was police enforcement of public urination by the homeless authoritarian?

His campaign against regulatory capture authoritarian?

The trouble is his habit of bulldozing through the machinations of his opponents. They respond with charges of authoritarianism. I think there were grounds for him to engage his union-busting and anti-corruption activities, but perhaps the problem is that his style leaves too much avenue of (undeserved) attack.

After all he believes in civil liberties quite a bit.
5.30.2007 8:13pm
Milhouse (www):
This is what I've been saying for years. When people ranted about the USA PATRIOT Act turning the USA into a police state, I ignored them, because I trusted the current administration (and especially John Ashcroft, who has suddenly turned in some quarters from an archvillain into a saint) not to abuse their new powers. I thought the act was a very bad idea, because it would give the same powers to future administrations and sooner or later there'd be one that would abuse them, but I was mostly thinking of Janet Reno and her ilk in the Democratic Party; I never imagined that Giuliani would become a serious contender for the GOP nomination.

Having lived in Giuliani's NYC, I regard him as indistinguishable from Reno in his attitude to civil liberties. I don't like to use the F-word, especially of someone from an Italian family, but the polite word is "authoritarian". I've pretty much determined that if he gets the GOP nomination, and it looks as if he might carry NY, I will seriously consider voting for the Democrat, even if they nominate the Wicked Witch from Westchester. I don't think she would be a worse president than Rudy, and on some matters, such as the war, she might well turn out to be better. (If I were anti-war, I'd be seriously afraid of her.)
5.30.2007 8:25pm
Henri LeCompte (mail):
Somehow I'm thinking there's another side to this story...
5.30.2007 8:47pm
Jim FSU 1L (mail):

"We see only the oppressive side of authority. Maybe it comes out of our history and our background. What we don't see is that freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do." - Rudy Guiliani


What more needs be said?
5.30.2007 9:00pm
Stan Peterson (mail):
Unless I am maistaken there has been only fourteen or so prosecutions under the Patriot act provisions that would not have occurred before it was passed.

Some Reign of Terror... This has all the earmarks of a campaign "dirty trick". I smell the techniques perfected by the Clintonians to discredit opponents, or women protesting that they were raped; all the while continuing the rape...
5.30.2007 9:11pm
michael (mail) (www):
It seems the season for the front runner's Houdini show. As in 'Let us put you in this pretzel and see if you can get out of it.' Sure the perp walk of financial people bothers me about him. It's long ago. Lately, he seems to have wanted to say, 'People can have different opinions. If you'll pardon me, I'd like to have one (over abortion).' Not necessarily wise but setting grounds, in his ongoing federalism stance, for implying that he doesn't wish to be authoritarian.

I think there is a place for targeting a problem. For instance, our drug policy is one of 'oh the poor victim; let us maintain him/her (and really their drug use) and shame on those unconscionable suppliers.' In fact to deal with the problem, if you see it as such, is to target users, to interrupt their use (not with long sentences). Now a person who took such an approach would be seen as authoritarian, correct? So, in my view, we need such because otherwise we're just needlessly getting Mexican police killed. This need for targeting or cutting losses as he may be awkwardly doing with his position on abortion is something I see in the man you've got here.
5.30.2007 9:23pm
pete (mail) (www):

We see only the oppressive side of authority. Maybe it comes out of our history and our background. What we don't see is that freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.


That sounds pretty reasonable to me. In many ways lawless anarchy reigned in New York before Giuliani's time as mayor with squeegee men terrorizing innocent motorists, the mob running the fish market, the high murder rate, etc. As much as I want to respect libertarian ideas, too many libertarians want to chuck all authority out the window on the strange idea that government is the only threat to individual liberty. Too much government can be oppressive, but too little government can result in oppression as well when people fall victim to criminals and other predators.

I personally do not want to live in a society where people can do whatever they want since inevitably that means they will end up taking something that belongs to me or hurting me or someone I care about because they feel like it. Lawful authority is a good thing.
5.30.2007 9:50pm
Sean O'Hara (mail) (www):
Whenever I read one of Terry Pratchett's Discworld novels, I always picture the Patrician as Giuliani. The Patrician's motto is, "One man, one vote -- and he was the man with the vote."
5.30.2007 10:03pm
Andrew Okun:
It is my impression that Rudy's style in New York was to use all the tools at his disposal, crudely, to improve things regardless of legal niceties. The city was in a sorry state and it may have been justified, but the point is that is what he is like, that is his shtick. The presidency has a lot more powerful tools lying around with a lot more niceties to be observed. He could get us in real trouble. Can he compromise and cut deals with bad people? Can he assemble a coalition? (A real one.) Can he live with Congress?

I think the concerns are real.

Meanwhile, he demonstrably can't tell the difference between the First Amendment and a sack of rotting onions.
5.30.2007 10:08pm
Steve:
I've lived in New York under Giuliani and Chicago under Daley. To be frank, I pretty much thing you need to be a little bit fascist in order to successfully run a big city. But I wouldn't really look for the same qualities in a President.
5.30.2007 10:08pm
Waldensian (mail):

Was police enforcement of public urination by the homeless authoritarian?

Yes. No homeless person should be forced to urinate in public against his or her will.
5.30.2007 10:28pm
Recovering Law Grad:
I understand that Rudy has great polling numbers on homeland security and terrorism, but can anyone say what a Giuliani supporter would point to when asked what Giuliani has done that makes them think that Giuliani would be strong on defense, security, etc.? I mean specifically, not "he was great after 9/11." What specific aspects of his background is Giuliani trumpeting when asked what he has done that prepares him to defend the country, lead the troops, etc.?

These aren't rhetorical questions. I'm legitimately interested. Does anyone know?
5.30.2007 10:34pm
wm13:
The specific aspect of Giuliani's background that makes me want to vote for him was best captured by Ruth Messinger, one of his political opponents, who ran some campaign commercials with the theme: "Rudy Giuliani doesn't care what you think." It's so refreshing to have someone interested in politics and the public sector who doesn't care what you think. (I mean, I don't care what you think, but I'm not interested in politics either.)
5.30.2007 11:20pm
wooga:
Guiliani returned the Saudi prince's money after 9/11. Bush would never have dared to offend the House of Saud. Standing up to the Saudis is something I expect Rudy to do.

Further, Rudy has demonstrated that he thinks crime can be reduced by punishing criminals. Many people view our criminal justice system as having a primarily rehabilitative purpose. Rudy (I think) puts more weight on the retributive punishment and deterrent sides of the equation. This implies a belief in the individual's responsibility for his own actions, rather than society's fault for forcing the criminal into a life of crime.

Extrapolating that to foreign affairs, Rudy's gut reaction to a terrorist attack will be "let's punish the terrorists," rather than "if only we frame our policies the right way, the terrorists won't hurt us anymore." Keeping in mind the Arab proverb of "a falling camel attracts a thousand knives," and widespread middle east acceptance of Osama's "strong horse, weak horse" view, I think that Rudy's punitive and deterrent approach to security will be much more effective than either the paleo-con's isolationist approach or the progressive 'rehabilitate our image' approach.
5.30.2007 11:26pm
wooga:
Also, Rudy views the war on terror as a battle for civilization, rather than just a war for oil. For those of us who also believe that, Rudy's adherence to that view is by far his most appealing attribute - and this understanding is important enough to outweigh almost all of Rudy's other flaws.
5.30.2007 11:30pm
M (mail):
Some examples: His illegal disclosure of the Juvenile police records of a man killed by the NYPD for refusing to buy drugs from an undercover officer. His attempt to remain in power after losing an eleciton, using Sept. 11th as an excuse. His (at least) condoining illegal strip searches for people stopped on infractions and low-level misdemeanors (jumping turnstiles, etc.) leading to the city of NY losing millions in law suits. The list goes on. This is w/o mentioning this other serious problems- representing the pushers of hill-Billy heroin, promoting, giving support to, and promoting someone with known mob ties to police chief and beyond, primarily because he supported Giuliani, and so on. He'd be a nightmare as president
5.30.2007 11:48pm
Bruce McCullough (mail):
"Freedom is the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do and how you do it." Rudolph Giuliani

quoted by William Poundstone on page 254 of "Fortune's Formula", 2005, NY: Hill and Wang


This undated quote, noted as being "pre 9/11", says it all.
5.30.2007 11:55pm
pete (mail) (www):
"His attempt to remain in power after losing an eleciton, using Sept. 11th as an excuse." Like so many criticisms of Rudy this is just making stuff up. Rudy was not eligible to run for reelection because of term limits so he could not lose the election.

You can make a reasonable case that Rudy trying to extend his term by three months was a bad thing, but the aftermath of 9/11 was a fairly remarkable and unique circumstance and switching city administrations during a state of emergency could have had very bad consequences. When people rejected the idea of him staying on he was fine with it and did not press the issue.
5.31.2007 1:23am
Mark H.:

...a man who would assume executive powers vastly expanded by President Bush. . . .



Expanded? Or recaptured/reiterated? And is there any real evidence of either in the real world?

I'm not particularly a Rudy fan, but to forward worry about his taking office based on the false premise of expanded executive power is not really worth discussing.
5.31.2007 2:13am
e:
Wooga points to a predicted tough approach in foreign affairs and with crime, but how does that differ from the other candidates?
5.31.2007 2:32am
Ship Erect (mail) (www):
You can make a reasonable case that Rudy trying to extend his term by three months was a bad thing, but the aftermath of 9/11 was a fairly remarkable and unique circumstance and switching city administrations during a state of emergency could have had very bad consequences.

You know, since this actually occurred and isn't just a hypothetical, we have experience from which to draw in this matter. With history as our guide, what kind of anarchy erupted when the standard electoral process was followed in NYC? Did the world end because Rudy didn't get his way?

Also, how long does a "state of emergency" last in a city attacked by two planes at one morning at 9 a.m. and not once since? Months? Years? Something tells me that Rudy would have liked to decide, given the ease with which he wanted to overturn democratic rule. George Washington he ain't.
5.31.2007 5:02am
Milhouse (www):
wooga:

Rudy has demonstrated that he thinks crime can be reduced by punishing criminals.
He's also demonstrated that it can be reduced by punishing non-criminals and by excessively punishing minor offenses.

For example, he ordered that every person arrested by the NYPD, no matter how minor the alleged offense, must spend a night in jail. While they were there, the police ran warrant searches, and the policy resulted in some very dangerous people being taken off the streets, thereby reducing the crime rate. It also resulted in lots of misery for the people thus incarcerated.

As US Attorney he ruthlessly used RICO to blackmail defendants into guilty pleas; as mayor he used civil forfeiture to sieze the car of anyone charged with driving under the influence, without waiting for a conviction - and said they wouldn't get the car back even if they were acquitted.

His high-handed crusade against porn shops, strip shows, and even ordinary unlicensed dancing. And of course against guns. Even his latest statements on the 2nd amendment show that he just doesn't understand it, or else doesn't believe in the whole concept of individual rights.

And that, I think, is the real explanation: he doesn't care about anybody's rights, he just does what he thinks will achieve the results he wants, and if people suffer that's their lookout. And that's why I fear his getting his hands on the powers of the USA PATRIOT Act. The current administration has not abused them, at least not significantly; I don't trust him to continue that.

Many people view our criminal justice system as having a primarily rehabilitative purpose.

Really? In this day and age? Do they believe in phlogiston too? I don't recall the last time I came across such a person, and suspect that you're fighting a straw man.


M:
His attempt to remain in power after losing an eleciton, using Sept. 11th as an excuse.
Huh? No such thing happened, at least in this universe. Not even anything remotely like it.

The 2001 election should have been postponed, at least for a few weeks. The delayed primary, and then the D runoff, played havoc with the campaign process, and it would have made sense to put the whole thing off for a bit. The new office-holders could probably still have been sworn in on schedule, but if that too had to be delayed for a bit it wouldn't have been the end of the world.

Oh, and the last election Giuliani lost was in 1989.
5.31.2007 5:24am
Milhouse (www):
Ship Erect:

With history as our guide, what kind of anarchy erupted when the standard electoral process was followed in NYC? Did the world end because Rudy didn't get his way?


The standard process wasn't followed. The primary had to be cancelled, and redone 2 weeks later. I got to vote against Bloomberg 3 times that year, twice in the primary and once in the general election; I heard about the attack on my way home from voting. (A friend-of-a-friend lost his bid for the city council, because he spent all his money in the two weeks before the primary, and when it was rescheduled he had none left, while his opponent had the resources of a state senator's office to call on.)

Then the D mayoral primary went into a runoff, so the Ds didn't even have a candidate until early October. That certainly didn't hurt Bloomberg's chances. In the turmoil at the time, it wasn't unreasonable for Giuliani to suggest a delay. When the suggestion wasn't accepted he didn't push it.
5.31.2007 5:33am
American Psikhushka (mail) (www):
pete-

As much as I want to respect libertarian ideas, too many libertarians want to chuck all authority out the window on the strange idea that government is the only threat to individual liberty. Too much government can be oppressive, but too little government can result in oppression as well when people fall victim to criminals and other predators.

I personally do not want to live in a society where people can do whatever they want since inevitably that means they will end up taking something that belongs to me or hurting me or someone I care about because they feel like it. Lawful authority is a good thing.


I think you're misunderstanding libertarianism. Libertarianism doesn't promote complete lawlessness. Libertarians believe in codified laws, enforced by competent police. (Some do advocate that the market for policing be privatized.) I don't know where the misconception that libertarians want to turn the world into a Mad Max-like wasteland comes from, but its false. Libertarians have to do a better job of getting the real message out there.
5.31.2007 6:19am
Anemos Kaze:
Milhouse-

Unfortunately, there are plenty of people out there who think that jails should be used primarily for rehabilitation. Just recently my school had a speaker who wrote a paper about it, and she got a surprising (to me) number of positive responses.
5.31.2007 6:48am
PersonFromPorlock:
"There is no question that Giuliani has a vision for New York. And though it's complicated, it can pretty much be summed up in one word: Singapore." -- Arianna Huffington, "Only in New York?" June 09, 1998
5.31.2007 9:40am
Orielbean (mail):
That's right American Psi - Pete is trying to tie libertarianism with anarchism. Anarchism, like that practiced in Spain when Franco seized power, is the tool used when even your churches and local cops seek to overwhelm the common man. It is the tool of last resort, as it cedes authority only to the organized mob.

Libertarianism is used to restrain the excesses of a greedy government that tries to do more than maintain civil order and public works.

Orwell's Homage to Catalonia is an excellent recounting of the Spanish Civil War, and the Anarchists get a good amount of face time in the narrative. A very good book that also helps to chronicle why Communism was so damaging and all those who were disillusioned by its empty promises (like George himself).
5.31.2007 10:18am
Orielbean (mail):
The Huffington quote is perfect. If you've ever been to Singapore, it has like no crime at all, the standard of living is really really high, no graffiti and everyone is polite.

My friend said "even the maids have maids." However...people walk on eggshells and they have a crippling cultural deficit. That government is a fearsome entity (and efficient to boot). I guess it is a balance to be struck. New York is dirty, dangerous, and rich with culture. Singapore is clean, safe, and impervious to artistic expression.

If you know any clean-living artists out there, buy them a ticket to that place. They would make money hand over fist.
5.31.2007 10:22am
A.S.:

I think you're misunderstanding libertarianism. Libertarianism doesn't promote complete lawlessness. Libertarians believe in codified laws, enforced by competent police.


Well, jeez, if THAT'S what libertarianism is all about, how does Giuliani's quote above conflict with it at all? You seem to be saying that libertarians agree with Giuliani that "freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be".
5.31.2007 11:31am
pete (mail) (www):
"I think you're misunderstanding libertarianism. Libertarianism doesn't promote complete lawlessness."

Unfortunately in many cases it does. If you want to point to an "official definiton" of libertarianism that advocates for reasonbable law and order and respects government authority that would be great, but there is no official definiton. Many libertarians are too quick to say any exercise of government authority is bad.

In many real life cases libertarians are in favor lawless behavior, for instance the last Libertarian presidential candidate made a point of refusing to get a drivers license. Now I am sympathetic to libertarian views and am probably more libertarian than 90% of the population, but I think regulating who gets to drive on publically funded roads is a perfectly legitimate function of government (and unlike most libertarians I think roads are a legitimate function of the government). Regardless of that you should obey the law. If you do not like a law try to get to it changed, do not ignore it because you do not like it.

This is why I am not a libertarian. I would like to see the role of the government reduced a great deal in areas like wealth transfers (which makes up most of the federal budget) but I think there are many legitimate functions of government where the government should be more active or is at an appropriate level of size.
5.31.2007 11:57am
M (mail):
As several people pointed out (don't they read each other's comments?) I was mistaken to say Giuliani 'lost' and election. This was just a mis-statement, though. Of course what I meant was that he could not stay in power because of term limits. But does that meaningfully change the fact that he attempted to illegally stay in power after his term ended? The _best_ thing that could be said was that he had a pathological belief that _only he_ could do what was needed for the city. But that was manifestly false. That he believed such a thing should be more than a bit worrying to anyone who claims to be worried about governmental abuse of power.
5.31.2007 1:25pm
Duncan Frissell (mail):
Actually, Bloomberg is much more authoritarian than Rudy was. I didn't like Rudy as a US attorney (though he lost a lot on appeal) but he wasn't bad as mayor. Less authoritarian than Hillary.
5.31.2007 1:27pm
whit:
" representing the pushers of hill-Billy heroin"

who are they? if you are referring to the drug co's - spare me.

oxycontin is an amazingly effective opioid. why? among other reasons, because it has an effective time release aspect, and this provides steady levels of the drug in the system - which is difficult to achieve with your hydrocodone's, etc.

the fact that some idiots choose to crush the pill and use it as a recreational drug (and a fair %age of them die - oh well) is not the fault of the drug co's.

what is sad is that the DEA etc. scare MD's into not prescribing oxy (which was moved from schedule III to schedule II) in particular and pain management drugs in general, because some people abuse them.

so frigging what?

that is not the fault of any drug company.

of course, if the makers of oxy weren't the people you were referring to, -- nevermind :)
5.31.2007 1:42pm
pete (mail) (www):
"But does that meaningfully change the fact that he attempted to illegally stay in power after his term ended?"

Occe again you a making things up. He did not try to illegally stay in power. He tried to lawfully change the charter to let him stay in power in a time of emergency and after an election had been cancelled. When that was rejected he gave up and moved on. Everything he did was legal. Unless you think it should be illegal for people to try to change a city charter.
5.31.2007 2:12pm
Thorley Winston (mail) (www):
The Huffington quote is perfect. If you've ever been to Singapore, it has like no crime at all, the standard of living is really really high, no graffiti and everyone is polite.


They also have some pretty good ideas for health care and entitlement reform -- basically a mandatory savings system (like Bush's proposal for Personal Retirement Accounts) rather than a system of expansive entitlements like we've seen in the European Welfare State models.

My friend said "even the maids have maids." However...people walk on eggshells and they have a crippling cultural deficit. That government is a fearsome entity (and efficient to boot). I guess it is a balance to be struck. New York is dirty, dangerous, and rich with culture. Singapore is clean, safe, and impervious to artistic expression.


I don't think there is any inherent conflict in having cleanliness and safety along with freedom and creativity. I wouldn't want to live in Singapore in part because they make a lot of things illegal that shouldn't be illegal and I don't believe their legal system offers the protection to defendants that are comparable to the ones offered in the United States. That being said if we could have fewer things being made illegal and retain the legal protections for the innocent/accused, I think there's a lot to be said for corporal punishment for pettier crimes rather than just probation or incarceration.
5.31.2007 2:37pm
JosephSlater (mail):
From Salon:

"If somebody can tell me what he did on 9/11 that was so good, I'd love to hear it. All he did was give information on the TV." -- NYFD Deputy Chief Jim Riches, whose firefighter son died on 9/11.
5.31.2007 3:23pm
Just an Observer:
Aside from inferences from Giuliani's record about how he would approach the matter of presidential power, we have little to go on. (Actually, we also have little to go on from any candidate, because none really has been questioned much about this very important area -- either in the context of civil liberties or separation-of-powers.)

There is this skimpy and troubling report by Ramesh Ponnuru, paraphrasing Cato President Ed Crane:

Crane says he was disappointed with Romney's answer to his question the other night. Crane asked if Romney believed the president should have the authority to arrest U.S. citizens with no review. Romney said he would want to hear the pros and cons from smart lawyers before he made up his mind. Crane said that he had asked Giuliani the same question a few weeks ago. The mayor said that he would want to use this authority infrequently.


Giuliani sells an image of himself, without specifics. as the toughest tough guy on the stage. That same image, without specifics, is frightening.
5.31.2007 4:05pm
Keyes:

Giuliani's view of power would be dangerous at any time, but especially after two terms of relentless Bush efforts to weaken the constitutional checks and balances that safeguard our liberty.


(Emphasis mine.)

It's startling still to see people blame Bush exclusively for the ruination of our constitutional checks and balances.

The problem, lest anyone forgot, was a GOP Congress hellbent on doing nothing to stop Bush.

Does anyone for a moment believe a GOP Congress -- and Fox News -- would have let a Democrat[ ] President run roughshod over the Bill of Rights?
5.31.2007 4:16pm
wooga:

Many people view our criminal justice system as having a primarily rehabilitative purpose.

Really? In this day and age? Do they believe in phlogiston too? I don't recall the last time I came across such a person, and suspect that you're fighting a straw man.

Milhouse,
Yes, and a quick google search finds some rather obvious examples, such as:
"The overarching goal of these reforms is to transform the state's youth correctional system into a "rehabilitative model" of care and treatment for youthful offenders." Here .This is a key issue for juvenile and drug crimes, where the modern shift has been to go to rehabilitation over punishment. In addition, one of the main opposition arguments against capital punishment is to devalue the importance of traditional retributive punishment.

And somewhat on point, here's a link to a debate from a Singapore author.

Moreover, as retributive punishment is inherently based on moral condemnation of the crime, any society which makes a concerted effort to avoid 'legislating morality' will invariably move away from retribution as the primary concern of the criminal justice system. After all, 'deterrence' is not particularly effective when dealing with violent criminal minds.

Do you really think I'm creating a straw man here?

After all, what about the common (yet empirically false) claim that terrorism is driven primarily by poverty, and if we gave more money to the hot spots, terrorism would decrease? Is that not a grand effort to rehabilitate a group/country, rather than the (presumed) Rudy approach of bombing the crap out of them as "righteous fury" with a side of "setting an example"?

Look, I'm an anti-statist, and as I said, I find a ton of flaws with Rudy (and he is certainly not my first choice). But there is a real, fundamental difference between Rudy and the progressives on their gut reaction to criminal behavior, including terrorism.
5.31.2007 4:33pm
Paul A'Barge (mail):
If Boaz doesn't like Giuliani, I'm definitely going to give Giuliani serious consideration.
5.31.2007 6:07pm
David M. Nieporent (www):
As several people pointed out (don't they read each other's comments?) I was mistaken to say Giuliani 'lost' and election. This was just a mis-statement, though. Of course what I meant was that he could not stay in power because of term limits. But does that meaningfully change the fact that he attempted to illegally stay in power after his term ended? The _best_ thing that could be said was that he had a pathological belief that _only he_ could do what was needed for the city. But that was manifestly false. That he believed such a thing should be more than a bit worrying to anyone who claims to be worried about governmental abuse of power.
No; that's the _worst_ that can be said. (And I think it's accurate) At no point did he "attempt to illegally stay in power." There is a provision of New York law that specifically allows elections to be postponed by three months in emergencies.
5.31.2007 10:02pm
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (mail):
Other than what has been said on this thread, and some news about his business dealings, I don't really follow Guiliani that much. But having read many Americans With Disabilities Act cases (Title II), although I have not conducted an actual count, I think Guiliani is the most-sued ADA defendant in the Country during his reign as Mayor of NYC. Almost as infamous as Molski in disability circles.
5.31.2007 10:08pm
Lysenko (mail):
The issue of gun control alone is sufficient to bar him from consideration as a presidential candidate, though it's far from being his only failing in terms of individual liberties.
6.1.2007 3:11am
Red Wolverine (mail) (www):
True, Rudy is an authoritarian. But he is an authoritarian in a non authoritarian party. Hillary Clinton is a totalitarian in an authoritarian party. That is a very dangerous combination. While on many levels I believe this woman to be incompetent, I still think she represents the greatest threat to individual liberty this nation has ever faced. It is my position that she can damage this nation more then Osama bin Laden ever could have imagined.

Red Wolverine

copiousdissent.blogspot.com
6.1.2007 5:57pm