Professional Soldiers ®

Professional Soldiers ® (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/index.php)

- The Soapbox (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=93)

- - Rudy Giuliani (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5949)

So Catwoman and I heard him speak last night at a big corporate lawyers' dinner here in LA. (Got our pictures taken with him too.)

I'll tell you, I was really impressed. He's a really entertaining speaker. Funny, personable, a great political candidate in that regard. Spoke about leadership and what he learned during the aftermath of 9/11. I wish I had something to take notes with, because I thought he made some excellent points about leadership. The first one was that you have to have a set of beliefs to be a good leader. Ronald Reagan was his example in this regard. He had 5 other points, which I think may be in a book he wrote. But anyway, I thought it was a great speech. I think he will be capable of breaking down the blue-state resistance to what we need to do in this war. The question is whether his moderation on various issues will eliminate red-state support.

He said during the brief Q&A session following the speech that he has not decided whether he will run for POTUS in 2008. But the way he answered the question made it pretty clear to me that he is thinking about it.

I think he'd be an excellent candidate if the campaign is run the right way. Rematch of the aborted race against Hillary, but on a bigger battlefield.

What do you guys think?

P.S. Got a signed Reggie Bush jersey with Orange Bowl patch at the silent auction. :lifter :D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roguish Lawyer

What do you guys think?

P.S. Got a signed Reggie Bush jersey with Orange Bowl patch at the silent auction. :lifter :D

Who is Reggie Bush?

I think that Rudy is a great guy, probably an outstanding leader up to Gubernatorial level, but is a RINO who I would not bother to vote for as a Presidential candidate.

Pro-too many wrong things, and anti-too many right issues.

Just my .02.

TR

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Reaper

Who is Reggie Bush?

This is Reggie Bush, aka "The President."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roguish Lawyer

This is Reggie Bush, aka "The President."

I thought that the President was George W. Bush, and you had mentioned the possibility of Rudy running in the future?

That guy doesn't look like either one of them.

TR

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Reaper

I think that Rudy is a great guy, probably an outstanding leader up to Gubernatorial level, but is a RINO who I would not bother to vote for as a Presidential candidate.

Pro-too many wrong things, and anti-too many right issues.

So if we have Rudy v. Hillary, you'd stay home?

I'd vote for Rudy in a heartbeat.

Most of what he is known as "for" and "against" that get him labeled a "RHINO" are specifically related to New York City, and easily dealt with by simply saying that they are State or local issues (and most of them are). A few are not, but I can live with them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roguish Lawyer

So if we have Rudy v. Hillary, you'd stay home?

Possibly.

Both are clearly anti-Second Amendment.

TR

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Reaper

Possibly.

Both are clearly anti-Second Amendment.

TR

I did not think you were a single-issue voter. Hmmm.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roguish Lawyer

I did not think you were a single-issue voter. Hmmm.

That, and National Defense are very high on my list.

If both parties have the same planks, I will go vote Libertarian, or another third party. And stock up on hardware and ammo.

TR

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Reaper

Possibly.

Both are clearly anti-Second Amendment.

TR

I like Rudy and always thought he did a good job as mayor of NY. He is; however, a product of the NY state of mind on firearms.

I would NOT vote for anybody that was anti-Second Amendment!

Hillary, is a joke! If they were the only choice I wouild indeed have to stay home!
:mad:

I voted libertarian when Bush Sr. ran against Clinton for reasons similar to those you have identified. I am not so sure that was the right choice in hindsight.

Hopefully, Rudy will change his mind, the platform will address it, or he will not be the nominee.

You think either side can afford to lose 3,000,000 votes in some very close states?

TR

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Reaper

That, and National Defense are very high on my list.

If both parties have the same planks, I will go vote Libertarian, or another third party. And stock up on hardware and ammo.

TR

Hence the problem with single-issue voting. No party, except perhaps the TR Party, will ever mirror your platform entirely in its. If you favor one party because its view on one issue, say gun control/Second Amendment rights, mirrors yours, you may find that its view on another issue may be far afield. Unless these national defense views also accord with yours:

Quote:

We call for the immediate and unconditional exoneration of all who have been accused or convicted of draft evasion, desertion from the military in cases of conscription or fraud, and other acts of resistance to such transgressions as imperialistic wars and aggressive acts of the military. Members of the military should have the same right to quit their jobs as other persons.

- National Platform of the Libertarian Party, Adopted in Convention, May 2004, Atlanta, Georgia

Quote:

We call for the end of the Defense Department practice of discharging armed forces personnel for homosexual conduct. We further call for retraction of all less-than-honorable discharges previously assigned for such reasons and deletion of such information from military personnel files. We recommend the repeal of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the recognition and equal protection of the rights of armed forces members. This will thereby promote morale, dignity, and a sense of justice within the military.

- National Platform of the Libertarian Party, Adopted in Convention, May 2004, Atlanta, Georgia

Quote:

We call for the withdrawal of all American military personnel stationed abroad, including the countries of NATO Europe, Japan, the Philippines, Central America and South Korea. There is no current or foreseeable risk of any conventional military attack on the American people, particularly from long distances. We call for the withdrawal of the U.S. from commitments to engage in war on behalf of other governments and for abandonment of doctrines supporting military intervention such as the Monroe Doctrine.

- National Platform of the Libertarian Party, Adopted in Convention, May 2004, Atlanta, Georgia; Previous versions also cited the Reagan Doctrine.

Quote:

End the incorporation of foreign nations into the U.S. defense perimeter. Cease the creation and maintenance of U.S. bases and sites for the pre-positioning of military material in other countries. End the practice of stationing American military troops overseas. We make no exceptions to the above.

- National Platform of the Libertarian Party, Adopted in Convention, May 2004, Atlanta, Georgia

Quote:

The important principle in foreign policy should be the elimination of intervention by the United States government in the affairs of other nations. We favor a drastic reduction in cost and size of our total diplomatic establishment.

- National Platform of the Libertarian Party, July 2, 2000

Quote:

Certainly America’s defense capability should be strong enough to defend the United States. However, the US now accounts for 37% of all the world’s military spending. Another 30% of world military spending is by countries in Western Europe along with Japan, South Korea, and Israel -- nations which pose no conceivable threat to the US. Russia, our former Cold War adversary, certainly represents no military threat. Our military budget is $260 billion; Russia’s is less than $80 billion. China spends less than $7 billion on defense. The most commonly cited rogue states -- Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, North Korea, and Cuba spend a combined $15 billion. Nowhere are American vital interests under attack or even seriously threatened. If the US were to pursue a policy of defending its own borders while avoiding foreign intervention, we could realistically reduce our defense budget to as little as $125 billion over the next five years.

- Libertarian Solutions; Michael Tanner on LP Web site, November 7, 2000

Quote:

We oppose the incorporation of the Persian Gulf and the countries surrounding it into the U.S. defense perimeter. We oppose the creation of new U.S. bases and sites for the pre-positioning of military material in the Middle East region. We condemn the stationing of American military troops in the Sinai peninsula as a trip-wire that could easily set off a new world war.

- 1990 National Platform of the Libertarian Party, Adopted in Convention, September 1989, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Quote:

BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Libertarian Party National Committee unconditionally supports his right to resist, and will continue to support his struggle against the state in whatever form it takes consistent with libertarian values; and
That the Libertarian Party National Committee supports the right of all draft eligible youth to resist registration and the draft.

- Resolutions of the Libertarian National Committee, August 30, 1981

And in case you thought you 7th Group guys were actually up to anything good...

Quote:

We oppose the current thrust by the U.S government to establish American political control over the Western Hemisphere and its growing involvement in internal conflicts in Latin America and the Caribbean. Specifically, we oppose the continuing U.S. campaigns to overthrow the government of Nicaragua; to intervene in the internal politics of Panama to overthrow its ruler; to fight "drug wars" in Mexico, Peru, Bolivia, and Columbia; and to prop up the government of El Salvador by sending in military personnel and foreign aid.

- 1990 National Platform of the Libertarian Party, Adopted in Convention, September 1989, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Oooooh, that was good, Dave. :D

But at least they avoid that hobgoblin of foolish consistency.

In 1972: "We should have a sufficient nuclear capacity to convince any potential aggressor that it cannot hope to survive a first strike against the United States. But, as our foreign commitments are reduced, and as our allies assume their share of the burden of providing a conventional war capability, we should be able to reduce the size of our conventional defense, and thus reduce the overall cost and size of our total defense establishment. "

In 1996: "The potential use of nuclear weapons is the greatest threat to all the peoples of the world, not only Americans. Thus, the objective should be to reduce the risk that a nuclear war might begin and its scope if it does. We call on the U.S. government to continue negotiations toward multi-lateral reduction of nuclear armaments, to the end that all such weapons will ultimately be eliminated, under such conditions of verification as to ensure multi-lateral security."

This latter position, that nuclear weapons constitute the greatest threat, which is also reflected in the 1990, 1992 and 1994 platforms, remains the LP's current stance. Terrrorism is only obliquely mentioned in the 2004 platform, conventional threats to the US are dismissed as non-existent, and human rights justifications for military intervention are completely ruled out.

Gun control advocates claim that while you may have the right to self-defense, we are going to deny you the means. The Libertarian Party claims the US has the right to defend itself, but had its policy of gutting conventional forces in favor of nukes in the 1970s been followed by its policy of gutting nuclear forces in the 1990s, the US wouldn't have much left in the way of means.