In the past, I probably would follow Brad’s lead and vote LP if given the choice between Rudy and Hillary…or McCain and Hillary….or Rudy and Obama….or McCain and Obama.

You get the idea.

I would consider doing that this time around, but only if the LP actually nominates someone credible.

Left with a choice between Hillary and Rudy, the option of moving to New Zealand would be very tempting.

Better yet, Australia. Or perhaps even New Hampshire.

Don’t do that. That falls into their false choice. If I’m faced with Rudy vs. Hillary, I’ll probably vote for the Libertarian candidate.

And why should I reward the incompetant loon the LP will probably nominate with my vote? Just because the Republican and Democrat candidates are horrendous (like a Rudy/Hillary race) doesn’t mean an unqualified Libertarian should receive your vote. Try staying home and selling hot dogs outside the polling place.

Don’t do that. That falls into their false choice. If I’m faced with Rudy vs. Hillary, I’ll probably vote for the Libertarian candidate.

Left with a choice between Hillary and Rudy, the option of moving to New Zealand would be very tempting.

If given a choice between Hillary and Rudy, I’ll vote Hillary. At least Hillary will have opposition to her totalitarian agenda while Rudy’s totalitarian agenda will have no opposition and quiet obedient support.

Why would I want to vote for someone that expects me to cede a great deal of my rights to his “lawful authority”?

Has Hillary Clinton ever cut taxes?

Answer: 30 points.

Giuliani scored as a Moderate Libertarian on OntheIssues.com with a 60/60.

Hillary scored as a Liberal with 60/30.

Now which one would you rather have?

BTW, Ron Paul scored a 70/70. He was the best scorer on the Index. Though, he continues to poll at less than 2%, at 0% in fact, in most national polls.

So, which would you rather have, the 60/60 scorer who might actually win, or the 70/70 scorer at less than 2% in national polls?

The only possible defence might be in the words “cede authority”…

Did he possibly refer to voluntarily ceding authority over to some authority who has discretion over many decisions ?

I very much doubt it. I think he’s referring to being coercively governed and heavily regulated.

Although this was 1994, I’d be very scared if Rudy didn’t immediately distance himself from those comments.

I support the troops. I don’t want their sacrifices to be in vain.

The last sentence saying freedom is when people give up a “great deal of” privacy sounds like someone who is for a “police state.”

I see nothing in here that says “police state.” In fact, the first sentence says something very supportive of limited government: “We constantly present the false impression that government can solve problems that government in America was designed not to solve.” The highlighted passage seems to me to express the genius of America, that we are one of the free-est countries on the planet precisely because of our enlightened rule of law, not in spite of it.

- Josh

If he would define freedom in this way, I cannot trust the rest of his remarks to reflect the plain, common understanding of those words either. Anything he says could mean anything that could be imagined.

Give me liberty and do NOT give me Rudolph Giuliani.