Now that Rudolph Giuliani is tentatively throwing his hat into the presidential ring, his candidacy is attracting more attention than ever. Here's Roger L. Simon:

Rudy seems to be running. He did the Exploratory Committee thing today. And I'm a happy camper not just because his views most closely represent mine (they do), but because he appears able to lead, a trait few have and one that will be highly necessary, I suspect, in the years to come. He also seems not particularly bound by party and ideological cant (a Freeranger, in the new Pajamas parlance). That's a good thing to me, although I know "party faithful" are suspcious of that. But I'm suspicious of "party faithful." And I think, as the years go on, there are going to be more people like me.

The problem for Giuliani is that some of the GOP's "loyal base" would consider him not not so much the guy who refuses to drink the base's Koolaid as the guy who'd poison it with cyanide:

"Giuliani is an ultraliberal," Sanders said. "He supports gay rights. He supports banning all handguns. He supports abortion. His wife kicked him out, and he moved in with two gay men and a Shih Tzu. Is that South Carolina values? I don't think so."

Giuliani was not questioned much about his record on the three G's (God, Guns, and Gays). However, the record will show that Giuliani has supported gay marriage, abortion, and gun control. Most observers would naturally assume that Giuliani won't play well here. But, Bandy seems to think otherwise.

Bandy's flawed assessment is based on his interpretation of the lack of questions on social issues. He surmises that people don't care and are actually focused on other things, namely national security. He may be right about that current focus, but even that won't bode well for an anti-gun Giuliani.

Think about it. What clear thinking person who is actually focused on national security would support someone who wants to take away their guns? If we suddenly find ourselves fighting terrorist here on South Carolina soil, I want every advantage I can have. I'm certain that many people agree.

It has an alliterative ring that just keeps on giving on a gut level, doesn't it?

Regular readers know that the Second Amendment is one of my major concerns, and I share the distrust of many towards Giuliani. But I try to be fair, and I find myself having to ask: is he a true gun grabber, or might his statements be more reflective of the political realities of being mayor of New York?

Recently, the conservative Spectator described Giuliani as "prudently backing off from his history of anti-gun demagoguery," and there's little question that he's trying to create distance between himself as a presidential candidate and remarks he made as New York's mayor.

"The assault-weapons ban is something I supported in the past," is what he said.

Like me, Captain Ed has strong misgivings about Giuliani's gun record:

I like Rudy, but his positions on guns bother me. I'm not as concerned about his pro-choice views, because (a) he supports judges that practice strict construction, and (b) other than judges, presidents have little affect on the debate anyway. I do have tremendous admiration for Giuliani, and not just because of 9/11. People forget that Giuliani took on the Mob and won as a US Attorney in New York, and that takes both guts and brains. He's a terrific speaker and a figure that attracts support from across the aisle. He's the anti-Hillary in more ways than one.

As to "banning all handguns," I'm unable to find any statement from Giuliani in support of an outright handgun ban, although I did find a "perhaps" call for licensing handguns like cars:

Perhaps, we should require insurance for handguns. If liability insurance were required to purchase and own a handgun, you better believe that the insurance industry would promulgate a pretty rigorous licensing and purchasing process to control the risk.

As a private citizen, as a prosecutor, as a Mayoral candidate and as Mayor, I have advocated for more regulated and more uniform gun licensing regulations, similar to those for a drivers license.

From my perspective as an NRA Life Member who tries to be fair, Giuliani's Second Amendment position can best be characterized as quite poor, but recently improving. I think it has to be taken into account that he's been Mayor of a very anti-gun city and that some of it may well have been anti-gun demagoguery intended to please the crowd, just as his current flip-flopping may be the same thing.

Would I prefer a flip-flopping demagogue to a true believing, anti-gun ideologue?

You bet.

Continuing with Howard Dean's magic alliterative formulation (I know, I hate it, but they weren't my words), we come to gays and God.

From what I can see, Giuliani opposes the FMA, while favoring civil unions. That's hardly the ringing endorsement of gay marriage some appear to think it is. But he obviously has gay friends, as he crashed with some after his divorce. Not only don't I hold that against him, I think it's evidence that he's a real human being who (a bit like Ahnold) doesn't look over his shoulder worrying about the appearance of every detail. If that's a disqualifying characteristic, I'd say we need more such "disqualified" candidates.

As to the "God" issue, I'm not sure I know what God looks for in a candidate, but he's said to care primarily about abortion and homosexuality. I'm sure Giuliani's friendship with gays makes him anti-God in the eyes of some, but again, I don't think most Americans think that way. (In fact, I think most Americans are repelled by people who think that way.)

On abortion, Giuliani is unabashedly pro-choice, and he does not see that as going against his religious principles or his Republicanism.

....[B]eing in favor of choice is consistent with the philosophy of the Republican Party. In fact, it might be more consistent with the philosophy of the Republican Party. Because the Republican Party stands for the idea that you have to restore more freedom of choice, more opportunity, more opportunity for people to make their own choices rather than the government dictating those choices. Republicans stand for lower taxation because we believe that people can make better choices with their money than the government will make for them, and that ultimately frees the economy and produces more political freedom. We believe that, yes, government is important, but that the private sector is actually more important in solving our problems.

So it is consistent with that philosophy to believe that in the most personal and difficult choices that a woman has to make with regard to a pregnancy, those choices should be made based on that person's conscience and that person's way of thinking and feeling. The government shouldn't dictate that choice by making it a crime or making it illegal.

I've never been able to understand why it isn't a distinction. Saying that a woman shouldn't be imprisoned for aborting her fetus is not the same thing as approving of her act, much less saying it is a good thing. I think drugs should be legal, but that does not mean I approve of or advocate heroin. If God disapproved of heroin, does that mean it would be immoral to oppose imprisoning people for it?

In short, Giuliani is a mixed bag. Much as I abhor his Second Amendment record, I'm enough of a pragmatist that under the right circumstances I could bring myself to support him.

Might have to push the "straight Republican" button, but what the hell. I did it before, so I think my finger may be developing a callus...