.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

John Adams Blog

The blog of The Antient and Honourable John Adams Society, Minnesota's Conservative Debating Society www.johnadamssociety.org

Thursday, February 01, 2007


At NRO's The Corner, Rick Brookhiser writes

Kathryn, I yield to none in Rudyphilia, but this [his history of supporting gun control] is a problem. Having a house over the hill from a gun club in the Catskills has sensitized me to it. Active gun owners may be a smallish minority, but they are passionate.

In NYC we all know of the third rail, which it is lethal to touch. Rudy has five third rails—abortion, gay rights, guns, immigration, and drama (personal). All he has going for him is that he is the only candidate who has done anything significant in public life. That, plus he's made of brass.
So Air Marshall doesn't like his gun positions, I don't like his take on social issues (abortion, gay rights) and so on. But Brookhiser is right. Rudy actually accomplished something phenomenal as a conservative using conservative principles. I remember what NYC was like before him. I lived there in the summer of 1992. Every previous mayor was a complete failure (Dinkins, Lindsey) or just somewhat of a failure (Koch). It was a dangerous filthy pit, and everyone but Guliani (including me) thought that this was simply the inevitable fate of a large American city. Guliani changed everything. My friends who lived there were (and are) simply ecstatic. The murder rate in NYC went from over 2000 per year to under 600. Normal people who wouldn't take the subway during the day would now take it alone at night, even twentysomething women. He cut taxes every year and got businesses to move back to the city when before they had been leaving in droves. He not only changed NYC, but every large American city by eliminating the excuses for every other city administration. He showed conservative principles work.

Rudy is a no-nonsense conservative. Further, the stuff we disagree with him on have little to do with the powers of the President of the United States. Rudy has said he agrees with Roberts and Alito as the kind of Justice he would appoint. Other than that, the President has nothing to do with abortion or gay marriage or any other social issue likely to come up. Same is true for guns. Beyond judges, guns are a state issue, and the Democrats are not so stupid as to make a big push on it on the national level. They've been burned too many times before. The gun issue has been, for the most part, already won. State after state has issued "shall issue" laws while crime has been dropping. The American people know this.

Finally, as Brookhiser writes, Guliani is made of brass (or what he really meant to stay, they clank when he walks). We're in a global war. We need this.

Blogger Air Marshall said...

Pencil, I bow to your superior information. However I would dispute that the "gun issue" is won, or has become some kind of national third rail. It is a Democrat Party platform plank, and we are dealing with some of the most radical Dems I have seen in my lifetime currently in leadership positions. Remember just last year they banned the home possesion of handguns in San Francisco, in violation of the State's pre-emption law, and included in the ban off duty police. During 1993 Democrats who were members of the board of directors of the NRA voted for Clinton's AWB, Rep. Dingle even resigning his board membership on the floor of the house. And POTUS is very involved in the issue. All he (or she) has to do is fail to veto a gun ban bill coming out of Congress and the damage is done and takes years to reverse if ever. Or POTUS can do as GHWB did and ban the importation of many types of weapons by executive order (fiat). He was a life member of the NRA at the time. He resigned his membership. As some of you know, I don't trust the current holder of the office in this regard either. He stated in 2003 he would sign a renewal of the AWB. Fortunately, the Republican house did not bring it up and it died through sunset. The Dems in the Senate were screaming bloody murder about that too, and Finestiein et. al. were in the forefront. It is true that if Rudy would appoint strict constructionists to SCOTUS that would solve much of the problem. Assuming of course, he could get them through the Senate.
I do stick to my proposition that a strong showing by Tancredo would help drag the RP toward the right.

10:23 AM, February 01, 2007  

Post a Comment