Congratulations Justin on a very well-written and reasoned piece!

The term "RINO" is most appropriately applied to Republicans like Senator Lincoln Chafee. His record is clearly left of center on ALL issues. Mayor Giuliani's record; aside from being pro-choice; is quite conservative. His economic policy in New York City was a great success that demonstrates hsi desire for low taxes. Steve Malanga had a great piece in City Journal in January that details his conservative record on crime and economics and should be read by those concerned for detail. He is now on the verge of laying out his healthcare reform policy. All early signs show it to be a piece that Milton Friedman could have designed. Does anyone really think Rudy would be weak on National Security ? Please. I would rather see him be a pro-life candidate, but I do believe he would nominate someone in Scalia and Thomas' mold. Such an appointment would go MILES in bringing social conservatives the end result that they desire. Let's be careful to define him based on his full record.

>>Mayor Giuliani's record; aside from being pro-choice; is quite conservative.

Giuliani is also bad (RINO) on the issues of gun control and illegal immigration.

And I can't get those photos of a cross-dressed Giuliani out of my mind: it's hardly the image I want for my President, either domestically or internationally.

Giuliani also supports school choice, not exactly a position embraced by RINO's. Tom, I respect your opinion and wouldn't hesitate to elect you our next President; but will you agree that he does not deserve the term RINO ? Take a look at his 12 Committments. How many of the 12 do you agree with ? How many would be considered Conservative stances ? I am more Conservative than Rudy is on social issues, but I think he has the best chance in this election cycle. Suppose Hillary wins. She will get 2 Supreme Court selections; both in the mold of Ruth Ginsberg. How does that sound? Right now we have 4 reliable Conservatives. Rudy could swing the court significantly ( to the right ) for a decade or more. Rudy will need to be true to center-right voters and I believe will nominate the right judges. Hillary will pacify Lefties and Big Labor. I'm interested to get your opinions.

Sean:

I respect you and your opinions as well.

Methinks that Giuliani (much like George W) is largely - but not entirely - a RINO on domestic issues, and pretty good on foreign policy / defense.

Though I'm pro-life, abortion isn't my #1 issue.

But illegal immigration and gun control are "core" issues for me, and Giuliani's "wrong" stands on illegal immigration and gun control are deal-killers for me.

While the Supreme Court issue is also mega-important, I resent the Republican establishment's efforts to maneuver me into voting for poor candidates ... and assuming that I'll do so and overlook everything else (a maneuver they tried last time with Chafee).

At present I'm (cautiously) inclined toward Fred Thompson, in that I'm supporting him unless and until something comes out about him to make me change my mind. He had a reliably (though not perfect) conservative voting record in the Senate, which is a darn good sign as to how he'd govern as President.

If something occurs to make me change my mind about him, or he otherwise doesn't get the nomination - and it goes to Giuliani or Romney - my inclination at present is to vote but to sit-out voting in the Presidential race.

Perhaps in the end I'd swallow hard and actually vote for one of them, but there's no way that I'd volunteer for either one or otherwise help get them elected.

I'm amazed people still bring Guiliani cross-dressing - on any list of reasons not to vote for Guiliani, that shouldn't even make the top hundred. Neither does his pro-choice stance.
I'm against Guiliani because of his shameless profiteering (speeches, consulting work, etc.) on 9-11. Listen, Rudy, 3,000 people did not give their lives willingly that day so you could be our emperor.

The only way I would vote for him would be if he announces a list of 6 or so anti-baby killing judges from whom he would choose SC nominess. No vague "like Scalia" platitudes. Name the names.

Rhody,
I disagree on the abortion issue--it's a big thing if you are legitimately pro-life. I say legitimately to exclude the "I'm personally against it" against it crowd.

The cross-dressing issue is one that I hadn't thought about until Tom W raised it. Tom is right, it would bring bad press in Arab countries. I might even be used as a recruitment tool for al-Qaeda.

But to pick up on Rhody's point, the broader question I have is should it matter?

Are we in a way giving into terrorism if we choose not to elect someone simply because he a appeared in a comedy skit wearing women's clothing? Should we also restrict other things because they could bring bad press to America in the Arab world?

Where do we draw the line?

Personally, I don't give a damn what the terrorists think of what we Americans do on our own time. I do plenty of things in my personal life and hold plenty of opinions that would give fundamentalist Muslims agita (they're usually the same things that would anger fundamentalist Christians, too). I worship neither Uncle Sam nor Uncle Osama.
Back on topic...Rudy displayed the same dissonance he shows on abortion when it came to attacking Hillary's morality during his aborted Senate campaign. He called the Clinton marriage bogus, all the while he was cheating on his own wife.

I

rhody,
There is one slight difference.

Giuliani and his wife(ves) didn't attempt to make it look like they were in a happy marriage. So technically Hillary was just in one bogus marriage, while Giuliani was in three bad marriages.

Of course, if three "bad" marriages equal one "bogus" marriage, then I suppose you'd be right.