Redstate

he does so politely?

I've never understood this line of reasoning. I don't see why we should deride the convert as insincere, and applaud an abominable position because it is taken unapolegetically.

I think it would be more accurate to substitue "honestly" for "politely" in your question. You also make an assumption, which is inaccurate by the way, that I applaud Guiliani's position on abortion. I do respect his honesty, but I do not support his position on abortion and will not support him in the primary for that very reason. Perhaps this is a difficult concept for you to understand, but it is possible to respect someone for honesty and consistency even when you disagree with him.

As to converts, no one derides true converts. Flip-flopping panderers who "convert" to bolster their political ambitions, however, deserve all the derision I can muster.

He got me excited when he said that he'd put "strict constructionists" on the bench.

Then he lost me when he said that a "strict constructionist" could support Justice Blackmun's law (Roe/Wade). A true "constructionist" does not invent new laws and does not allow prior "judicial legislation" to stand.

Roe/Wade was a huge loss for states' rights.

Rudy's gone from my B-list to unacceptable at this point.

I'll take Romney or Thompson, but not Rudy.

But an even bigger majority doesn't think Abortion is the make or break issue and I bet an even bigger majority would say the same about federal funding for abortions or partial birth abortions. Giuliani would be perfectly electable even being in the minority on these couple of things.

"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR

Rudy polls well because 1) he has more name recognition than the other candidates because of 9/11 and 2) people still think he is a solid moderate Republican who falls outside the SoCon wing. SoCons deal with him, but don't know just how radical he is on some of the issues and just how shady his personal life is.

many of the socons are a subset of big government cons. I think the libertarian cons are the least happy with Rudy.

Molon Labe!

I think the libertarian cons are the least happy with Rudy.

He thinks Rudy is a libertarian and I believe Rudy is his choice for 2008. How he came to that conclusion, I don't have the slightest idea. So apparently at least one libertarian thinks he is great.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

by ANY stretch of the imagination

Values voters have little to show for years of Republican rule

That is not true. We have Roberts and Alito. If we can get one or two more of those, we will really have something.

The problem is that values are decided by the Supreme Court. There are very few opportunities to appoint liberal Supreme Court justices so the process of winning the values war is necessarily long.

Liberal smugness over the unlimited powers of the Supreme Court turn to shrill hysteria once we get a majority.

If Bush gets another nomination, I bet he'll fail to see it as a chance to rally the center-right base, and instead cave to the Democrats and give us at best another O'Connor.

If the Democrats win in 08, and hold in 2012, then its over, as they'll replace Stevens, Ginsburg, Kennedy, Scalia, and probably Souter as well. Then we could expect to see a juggernaut of leftwing activism, with Thomas, Alito, and possibly Roberts offering brilliant but worthless dissents. By the time such an era came to an end, the Culture War would also be over, with a complete victory for the Left. So even if the GOP regained Presidential dominance (which it won't, as demographics will likely result in Democratic dominance very soon), it won't matter.

If Rudy wins...well, I think he's sending clear signals now that the best we can hope for from his are O'Connors, while we shouldn't be surprised if we get Souters.

If a Republican wins who actually would try to put conservatives/originalists on the Sup Court, then I think a Democratic filibuster is likely, especially if it is a justice who could finally result in a conservative majority.

I'd like to be an optimist about this, but its just hard to do so. I think we lost our chance in last year's midterms. Those results were no doubt doubly encouraging for the terrible duo of Ginsburg and Stevens; on the one hand it likely lifted their hopes for a Democratic victory in 08 and thus encouraged them to hold on, while on the other hand it reassured them that if they must leave in the next two years, they can do so w/ the threat of the 'nuclear option' removed, and with an unbreakable Democratic filibuster.

appoint should be replaced with "replace."

"And on abortion, even if Roe v. Wade collapsed, the issue would merely return to state legislatures. An important pro-life goal, to be sure, but polls show that public support for abortion rights is, sadly, solid and secure."

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_5370379

I'm a conservative and I'm against abortion however it's not going to away. Don't you realize that Ultra-Liberal states like Massachusetts, New York, and the rest of the Blue states and also Canada would just become abortion factories. I personally hate abortion I think it's murder however the sad fact is it's here to stay. I just don't like being used by slick talking politicians so I now choose candidates who are committed tax cutters and strong leaders against terrorism. So unless Fred Thompson Runs I will vote for Rudy.

some folks in pro-life states would have the money to fly or drive to pro-choice states, but not all. and even so, having to fly or drive to another state is itself a serious impediment.

we would see significantly fewer abortions, and over the long term, we would see a number of other important social improvements.

"During my lifetime, all our problems have come from mainland Europe, and all the solutions from the English-speaking nations across the world." - Thatcher

Don't you realize that pro choice groups would transport these women who chose to have abortions but couldn't afford to travel on their own to the blue states that allow it.
I'm against abortion I'm 100% pro-life however I'm not losing anymore sleep over it because it's all Rhetoric and nothing else. http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_5370379

I worry about taxes and terrorism not something that is just used as a tool to get out voters.

and them using up their money on transportation than government paid for abortion on demand.
______________________________________
The CIA has better politicians than it has spies - Fred Thompson

Every pro-lifer knows that abortion will never be completely eradicated from the U.S. Does that mean we give up the fight? That's crazy.

Besides the broader issue here is that we now have nine super legislators handing down broad edicts as if they were gods. This has to stop. The people should be making these decisions through their legislatures. If we do not win the Supreme Court, then we will continue to have the liberal agenda shoved down our throats (didn't the Supreme Court just rule that the EPA has to regulate vehicle emissions of carbon dioxide?).

Taxes and terrorism are the only things that Rudy seems to be conservative on. However, I haven't seen anything to convince me that he is any better on this than Romney and, at least for terrorism, McCain.

From a political and governing perspective, the issue of who decides is the bigger deal. If the people embraced the Left's destructive cultural agenda, then I wouldn't like it, but I could accept it, even as I try to to fight it. Having as few as five arrogant, elitist, power-usurping judge-kings impose that agenda is not acceptable. It breeds anger and resentment, as it is not a proper way to settle such matters.

Opinions change over time. The pro-life movement will certainly take time to be successful across the entire US, but that does mean it is not worth the fight. Also, while abortions would still be legal in many US states if Roe were overturned, there's no doubt in my mind that many states would quickly outlaw most abortions. While hundreds of thousands of unborn children would still be killed every year, hundreds of thousands of others would live. That's not a matter of insubstantial consequence.

we should all support the reversal of Roe v. Wade / Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Which means, insist that our nominees pledge to nominate Supreme Court Justices who will reverse it.

I share Demophilus' view that Republican politicians have used pro-life rhetoric to get our votes with no intention of doing much about abortion once they're in power. But we can't give up on reversing Roe.

The federal courts shouldn't be deciding our abortion policy, and perhaps the federal government more broadly shouldn't be deciding it either. In the spirit of the Tenth Amendment, let's demand that the people of each State be able to decide their own abortion law. And force the federal courts to obey their choice, whatever it is.

In my State, I will join people like gideon and dblagent in lobbying for pro-life laws. New York and California will take the opposite approach, but this is the best compromise we can hope for.

You care about the abortion issue, but since republican candidates have not come through on these issues as they promised, you "refuse to be played like a fiddle any longer to slick talk and no action politicians."

So what do you do. Look for sincere politicians who will take the issue seriously? No. You abandon your "values voter" position on abortion and go on to other issues. In other words, you give up.

This is why republican moderates and self professed "conservatives" can get away with so much.

Hold them accountable!

voters -- often roughly equated with libertarians -- certainly don't just live in the Northeast / West Coast states.

That combination comes closest to describing my views, and I live in Michigan. Hundreds of times I've met Republicans (and Independents who tend to vote Republican) in the Midwest and Mountain West who describe themselves in those words or something like it.

Libertarians are a major part of this party nationally. Rudy, however, is NOT remotely a libertarian. His authoritarian support for restrictions on our Second Amendment rights is exhibit number one. His apparent support for forcing taxpayers to subsidize abortion is exhibit number two (what happened to the "free choice" of anti-abortion taxpayers, Rudy?).

I have no problem with someone libertarian or truly "socially liberal" being on our ticket, but Rudy doesn't qualify.

Renegade cops. I am at this point a Rudy supporter but we honestly have a very serious problem in this nation with a huge number of violent and out of control renegade cops that need to be weeded out of our nations police forces. Something has to be done about the types of people who are becoming cops these days. I used to think there were only a few bad apples but after investigating the issue I have come to the sad conclusion that we have a very sustantial problem with outlaw cops in the ranks of our law enforcement agencies.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/316138,CST-NWS-abbate28.article

And it's not just in the cities I love in a upscale suburban community and while we have alot of good cops we also have alot of Thugs that wear badges working here.

Youtube has unlimited videos of this very serious nationwide problem.

1. Rockefeller was no libertarian. I never claimed that. Rockefeller was a nanny stater.

2. I think you overestimate a) the prevelance of "libertarianism" in general; and b) the sway that "libertarianism" has in the Republican Party. That or you have an overly broad definition of "libertarianism."

3. Notice that you did not contradict my more general statement that the Rockefellerites live in Blue States Michigan, while certainly more favorable to the GOP than NY, is still a Blue State), as are IL, WI and MN).

4. I failed to do this, but the term "fisc-con/soc-lib" needs to be defined at least generally as we may night have the same things in mind. I'm guessing we don't as you are expanding the spectrum on social issues to the right by adding "moderate" (another term that is utterly worthless without a definition of what it means to you). I do not consider public funding for abortions socially "moderate" - it is liberal, as is support for partial birth abortions, and the acceptance of Roe v. Wade as either rightly decided or immovably entrenched.

5. Rudy is not a libertarian, he wouldn't claim to be one, and I have heard nobody make that claim on his behalf. I am not a libertarian either - it is a silly ideology that hurtles toward anarchy as it reduces governments to virtually nothing in terms of powers and then advocates that it not even exercise those left to it very much. I doubt much that your "libertarians" are really all that Libertarian either. My point was that Rudy is a government guy the way the liberal Republicans of the late 70s were. He is Rockefeller and Weicker and Javits not Reagan.

He is a liberal. Until the summer of 2001 he was a self-identified liberal Democrat. He only calls himself a Republican so he was able to avoid a crowded primary.

He is a technocrat, and rather bland. I doubt he would have any of the populist folksy appeal that Ross Perot attracted.

His support would come from the center (perhaps, that is by no means assured) - but it would more likely come from the center-left than the center-right. He is unlikely to move otherwise Republican states out of the Republican column. He may make some states a little more interesting, but my guess is that there would be more "blue states" in that bunch than "red states" (think NY, NJ, CT, PA). And having lived in Bloomberg's NY for 4 years, I can't see him being an attractive alternative - both sides would have to lay an egg to give him a shot.

If Michael Bloomberg ran for the presidency as an independent and campaigned hard all the way to election day starting in about April 2008 and spent the $300 millio to $500 million it would take, he would decimate Hillary, or whoever the Democrat nominee is, in the northeast, especially, and probably many other blue states, also. That could set the stage for a 40-50 state sweep for the Republican, no matter who that might be.

I have a friend in NYC who went to Harvard Law with Barack Obama and Ken Mehlman who wants Bloomberg to run (because he actually wants Bloomberg to be president.) I always tell him that he needs to encourage him to run! LOL

Heck, maybe we could run all liberal candidates and really clean up against the democrats. Only, what would we achieve?

is that we could get away with nominating someone even as divisive as Newt Gingrich if Michael Bloomberg ran because he and the Democrat would so fracture the liberal/Democrat vote.

Bloomberg is being recruited by Unity08 and the DLC.

but we must do everything we can to make sure "what we have" isn't this. I agree with the post above that a Rudy nomination would destroy the Republican party, even if it doesn't cause an independent candidacy that would recreate 1992, which is very probable.

Nixon:
1. Warren Burger
2. Harry Blackmun
3. Lewis Powell
4. William Rehnquist

Ford
1. John Paul Stevens

So, under these pro-choice administrations, strict constructionists/originalists went 1 for 5. In the next 8 years, we have the opportunity to possibly replace John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter, Anthony Kennedy, and the sadly mortal Antonin Scalia.

Can we really afford to go 1 for 5 again with another pro-choice Republican president?

I don't think that Nixon and Ford are exactly strong arguments for nominating Rudy Giuliani.

...it didn't get much better with Reagan and Bush the Elder, both of whom made reigning in the Courts part of their platform, and then failed miserably. They also had a combined 5 picks, and only improved upon Nixon and Ford by one as they went 2/5.

100% Agreed.

Not only is it a socially liberal position, it is a big government position. So called Conservatives are pissed at Bush for things like prescription drugs, but bend over backwards for a guy who wants taxpayer money and more goverment beaurocracy to abort babies. It's ridiculous.

And sign me up for Glock as well.

See the Academy

convoluted as all legal things are.

Basically, IF a state defines abortion as a medical procedure (why it should is another matter) and IF it covers medical procedures for poor people as a matter of policy, it has no justification to deny abortions to poor people IF abortion is defined by the SC as a constitutional right (the flawed, but entirely legal, position of Roe).

This will be the case as long as all the ifs are.

Yes, we are talking about one issue here, but don't try to sell this baloney that abortion is the only issue that many conservatives have with Rudy. Rudy is very much to the left of the majority of the Republican party on abortion, gun control and gay marriage (just to name 3 issues off the top of my head).
______________________________________
The CIA has better politicians than it has spies - Fred Thompson

He's not pro-gay marriage and never has been so don't get into that line of garbage. Look it up for yourself.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0702/14/lkl.01.html

"GIULIANI: Gays should be protected. I signed The Domestic Partnership Law in New York. But the way I'm portrayed by my opponents -- and I guess to drive people away from me -- is that I'm in favor of gay marriage. I am not. I did 220 weddings. They were all between a man and a woman. I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman. At least, I hope they were all between a man and a woman. It looked that way at the time.

But, yes, I believe that marriage is something that should be between a man and a woman and that the way to handle this, and the way to handle respect and everything else is to have something like domestic partnership, which I support."

is that he's to the left of most of the Republican party.
______________________________________
The CIA has better politicians than it has spies - Fred Thompson

The libertarian position on gay rights should be that gays shouldn't be discriminated against, and that the government shouldn't entangle itself with gay relationships while allowing people to privately contract responsibilities and priviliges between them - regardless of relationship.

Rudy's approach is to get the government involved via civil unions - which is marriage by another name. That's completely anti-libertarian and I'm opposed to it.

So are you concerned with single-issue voters or just the particular issue that some such voters have chosen? You're pro-life, but willing to overlook an extremely liberal position on abortion because "your" issue is foreign policy, and in that realm you feel he agrees with you.

The fact is abortion is a big issue for people. It is their "war on terror." Some people choose taxes, others are very key on second amendment issues. All combined, those issues become the definitions of what a political party is. The GOP is already known as the pro-life party. But it is not, and is in no jeopardy, of being a single issue party focused only on abortion.

Taxes,terrorism,foriegn policy, failed war on drugs, education, getting us off of oil and get on ethanol like Brazil, 2 million people in prison 700,000 of which are non-violent drug users who are only dangers to themselves.(I don't want my taxmoney used to babysit potheads in prison),getting out of the UN, keeping the right to bear arms intact,getting rid of corrupt cops, and then maybe abortion.

I'm as far from a single issue voter as you can get

why do you say: "The war on terror trumps all other issues anyway."

issues. I should have stated that it was the most important issue because believe me the others like taxes and the rest mean a great deal also. Anyway if we lose the war on terror taxes and abortion will be the least of our worries.

I don't neccesarilly see a problem with having terrorism being the trump issue. However, you can't call me a single issue voter for not being willing to vote for an abortion supporter any more than what you are a single issue voter for not being able to support someone who is bad on the War on Terror.
I have other issues that matter to me too. The war and starvation in Africa greatly concern me, I am greatly concerned about immigration. I would like to see school choice. Allmost every issue I have some kind of opinion. However, I do not see how I can vote for someone who is in favor of spending my tax dollars to help fund a holocaust of over 1000,000 children a year.
The war on Terror is very important to me, still it seems like a very weak excuse for us to stop fighting the terrorism that has killed millions and millions of human lives.

See the Academy

Somehow you manage to completely contradict youself in the space of one paragraph. If I didn't know better I would think that you were doing a parody on the people on your side. You go from
"Histroy of single issue politics has always been unsuccessful"
to
"The war on terror trumps all other issues anyway." in a matter of seconds. Way to go on speedy flip flops.

I'm . . . worried about the future of our party if we continue down this path where a large number of us are only concerned with single issue politics

The war on terror trumps all other issues anyway.

Seems like you're not so opposed to single issue politics after all.

cuff, from the hip lazy campaign. I agree qith you 100%. You are my Huckleberry, Doc.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
Starbucks: Coffee, good. Cups, bad, but
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

daisy :)

Molon Labe!

that SCOTUS with Rudy, is the fear.

Republican victory in 2008. The actual candidate is secondary. And as we know from painful experience, there are no guarantees on how someone will act when he/she reaches the court.

Did anyone watch House last night on FOX? Yeah, it's a TV show, but Dr. House performed surgery on a 21-week-old child in the womb.
Throughout the episode, House was recommending "terminating the fetus" to save the life of the mother, but his boss (that obnoxious woman) wouldn't let him. She forced him to perform surgery on the kid. After they made the incision into the womb, they had a shot focused on the mother's stomach. Slowly, a tiny hand, no bigger than a fingertip, poked through the stomach. Dr. House just stared for about 20 seconds; it was obvious that he had never looked at an unborn child that way. After the surgery, Dr. House was talking to the mother and referred to the "baby."
Anyway, when Roe was decided, it was unthinkable that a procedure like that could be done. It was unthinkable that a 21-week-old baby could be viable, like what happened a few months ago. The evidence convinced Dr. House, just as the evidence is convincing society, and the evidence will convince the Supreme Court.

Do you think judges like Stevens, Ginsburge, Souter, and Breyer care one bit about the science? Do you think any judge that any Democratic candidate would nominate would care? The reasoning doesn't really matter, as such leftwing activist judges will come up with a whole new (absurd) rationale if the science is not on their side. The arguments and facts put before the High Court are of little importance. The Souters and Breyers know what outcome they want beforehand, and then just construct their decision around it.

All that should matter is that there is no legitimate Constitutional right to abortion. The only way that will ever be reflected in jurisprudence is if we get more Scalias, Thomases, and Alitos on the bench.

Destroyed the fallacy that Roe v. Wade had anything to do with science.

Too bad that her expert dissection of Roe has disqualified her from Supreme Court consideration. It's a real shame. McCorvey v. Hill, however, may end up being a real legacy opinion, however.

If we get a case that overturns Roe, ever, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Edith Jones's concurrance in McCorvey quoted.

Hearing her name is a source of great sorrow and resentment since she was the alleged runner up to the awful David Souter.

Had Bush the Elder got that right, then we'd probably be talking about increasing the conservative majority on the Sup Court instead of hoping to finally achieve it.

You don't gain anything by loosing the election. You GAIN only by electing congressman and senators who are conservative.

I will take a Rudy, with long coat tails over a loss to whatever the democrats put up as a contender.

Even A RINO has some ear for what we desire, and if Rudy says he will respect our objectives, AND he gets the nomination, they we should support him.

We know one thing, any democrat will consider anything you and I want to be more dangerous to this country than Arab Imperialism. After all, we are the enemy, they are only misguided.

Remember, it isn't the conservative in the presidential nominee that will reshape SCOTUS, but the strength of the conviction of those legistlators who ride the president's coat tail to victory.

Unless you think sitting it out and letting the democrats have their way with the election will send a message that anybody will care about. In that case, we may never gain a majority again.

Support the Mission - Honor the troops
Exsolvo Orbis Terrarum

You can't be serious. Exactly which world must one be living in to believe that Newt Gingrich has even the slightest chance of winning even a single state -- let alone enough of them to secure him the nomination?

Because it can't be the same one I'm living in.

And I say that as a longtime fan of his. I own, and have read, every single one of his books. I donated to GOPAC back when he was running it.

I'm not anti-Newt -- quite the contrary. But I realize that he's roadkill so far as electoral politics go. It absolutely stuns me that there are people who don't.

And, FWIW, I don't think McCain's far behind him. It's been a long time since John McCain's had anything approaching a good political week. His poll numbers are slumping, his fundraising is slumping, the Democrats and independents who used to adore him have abandoned him, even the media isn't harping him anymore.

Fred Thompson's a different story. I'm not sure that Thompson would be as strong a candidate as many think -- but he is a realistic candidate, if he decides to pursue it.

Short of that, the chances that anybody other than Giuliani or Romney end up with the Republican nomination are remote.

I'm not saying I believe them, necessarily. You may well be right.

But you really don't have any empirical evidence to support your conclusion. Giuliani polls extremely well against every single one of the prospective Democratic nominees.

And that's simply a fact.

One more thing to consider that the polls don't: if Rudy wins will this cause a conservative third-party candidate to enter the race? That doesn't seem unlikely to me and, given how closely the last couple of elections have been, a candidate who takes even a few percentage points from Guiliani will swing the election to the Democrat.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
Starbucks: Coffee, good. Cups, bad, but
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

That's why I said that these are things that people are going to have to consider when choosing their horse for the primary.

The subtext of that thought, which I didn't see a need to state outright, was that if Giuliani wins the nomination, then it's time for us to unite behind him. I'm fairly confident that I'll be getting firmly behind whomever gets the Republican nomination.

Conservatives should be careful to not fill themselves up with too much anti-Giuliani verve. He may, after all, be the GOP nominee and, thus, the only thing keeping us from something far worse from a judicial standpoint, fiscal standpoint, etc.

I'm a big fan of the primary process and think it's an appropriate time to do this sort of thing. But you have to be wary of crossing some lines -- the line here being the one separating the belief that Giuliani would be less preferable than some other candidate and the belief that Giuliani is a non-starter in any election against any opponent.

I'm simply working to keep us within the realm of the former.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
Starbucks: Coffee, good. Cups, bad, but
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

you said->"Conservatives should be careful to not fill themselves up with too much anti-Giuliani verve. He may, after all, be the GOP nominee and, thus, the only thing keeping us from something far worse from a judicial standpoint, fiscal standpoint, etc."

In the unlikely event that Giuliani is the republican nominee, I can guarantee you that millions of conservatives, including me, will NOT support his candidacy. There is absolutely no evidence that Giuliani would be any better than Hillary Clinton. In fact, on some issues, Giuliani is to the LEFT of Clinton. For example, the 1996 Welfare reform bill which the republican congress and Bill Clinton signed...Rudy Giuliani OPPOSED it claiming it would do more harm than good.

I'm willing to go only so far in support of a moderate/liberal republican. I'd hold my nose and probably vote for McCain or Romney, but thats as far as I would go. Under no circumstances would Giuliani get my support.

Republican for you.
How do you think we got stuck with Bubba for 8 years?
Did ya not learn a thing?
__________________________________________________________

The ultimate determinant in the struggle now going on for the world will not be bombs and rockets but a test of wills and ideas-a trial of spiritual resolve: the values we hold, the beliefs we cherish and the ideals to which we are dedicated.-Reagan

Well, hopefully a President Giuliani would do a better job than Reagan at Sup Court appointments. 1/3 is great in baseball, but its awful for picking judges. I'm a fan of Reagan like most conservatives, but we shouldn't forget that he could have delivered the elusive conservative Court had he put more effort into it. That would have been a domestic achievement to rival his victory in the Cold War.

But I think Giuliani is sending strong hints now that the best we could hope for from him are O'Connors and Kennedys, and that we should't be surprised if he gives us Souters.

you mentioned judges, but by far his biggest mistake was to pick George H W Bush as his running mate. We have been stuck with the Bush's and their patrician style of quasi conservatism ever since.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

on this subject from my favorite rooster.
I'm not thrilled with his stance on abortion, but I still think he is the only one on either side of the ditch that truly gets the big picture on this global war on terror.
And believe me, it is a WAR, da**it!
______________________________________________________________

The ultimate determinant in the struggle now going on for the world will not be bombs and rockets but a test of wills and ideas-a trial of spiritual resolve: the values we hold, the beliefs we cherish and the ideals to which we are dedicated.-Reagan

You said->"I'm not thrilled with his stance on abortion, but I still think he is the only one on either side of the ditch that truly gets the big picture on this global war on terror.
And believe me, it is a WAR, da**it!"

What makes you think Giuliani has anymore understanding of the gloabl war on terror than John McCain ? Or Mitt Romney ? Or Duncan Hunter ?

I believe that on that issue almost ALL of the republican candidates have similar views. No need to choose the most liberal of them just.

sun is beckoning, which is a rare thing in the PNW.
McCain-his views on Guantanamo, enemy combatants, his lust to undermine our president when it benefits him, etc.....I could go on for a while, but won't. Maybe becker would give you even more. And, he's too old.

Romney gives me the willies, heeby geebies, whatever you call them. He has absolutely NO experience in foreign policy or true crisis management for that matter. Given his overall tendencies to placate, I think he would take us back to the days of appeasement, which just doesn't work for me.

Duncan Hunter is someone that I think gets it. Unfortunately, no one knows who he is and he doesn't seem to be too terribly organized at this point.

With the exception of the death of my own mother, 9-11 was the absolute worst day of my life. I knew the minute they called looking for hubby that all was about to change. Sadly, I was right. Guiliani saw upfront the horror we all watched from our TV screens. Yet he picked his city up, dusted it off, and led them through the first painful steps of recovery. He also refused to make nice with Saudi's when they were handing out blood money. As I have watched him over the last six years, there has never been I time when I have seen him on the TV screen that I didn't know he truly knew what was at stake. And honestly, the only other person in leadership that I can say that about is Dubya. Both these men get it and I believe they will do everything in their power to see that we succeed.

With the exception of Duncan Hunter, I can't say that about any other declared candidate.

I have never been a single issue voter, but I guess I could consider myself one now. And it's all about National Security. For now, everything else is secondary.
_____________________________________________________
The ultimate determinant in the struggle now going on for the world will not be bombs and rockets but a test of wills and ideas-a trial of spiritual resolve: the values we hold, the beliefs we cherish and the ideals to which we are dedicated.-Reagan

questioning like what he got in SC will force him to clarify hisself like I wish for him to do. I will trust him on what he promises. I want promises of what he WON'T do despite his personal beliefs, and that can be done thru questioning, not speeches and position papers.

I suspect that when all is said and done, he will be ok with most evangelicals.

I have been tough on him and will coninue to be, but I listen to his words and most Christians will. We will be fair.

He made huge progress with me on the promise not to seek to expand Hyde.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
Starbucks: Coffee, good. Cups, bad, but
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

You said->"I suspect that when all is said and done, he will be ok with most evangelicals."

Again, with all due respect, I don't think you understand whats coming later this year. Think of it as an "evangelical wall". James Dobson, Focus on the Family and numerous other evangelical organizations will spend millions of dollars to defeat a Giuliani candidacy. The stakes for the future of the party, SCOTUS, not to mention the country, are on the line in 2008. Social conservatives won't support Giuliani no matter what some of the current polls suggest. He's just too liberal and offensive to religious conservatives.

I AM an evangelical conservative and I contribute to Focus on the Family at times. And I am quite comfortable with a Rudy candidacy given the current crop of candidates. He's not a 100% perfect fit for me, but he fits what matters most.
_________________________________________________________

The ultimate determinant in the struggle now going on for the world will not be bombs and rockets but a test of wills and ideas-a trial of spiritual resolve: the values we hold, the beliefs we cherish and the ideals to which we are dedicated.-Reagan

Well, you must be one of those "rare" evagelicals who supports pro-choice, multiple divorce, candidates.

Like I said before, there is nothing in Giuliani's background which suggests he would be any better at fighting terrorism than John McCain. But, as the campaign goes on there will be reports of some of Rudy's less than stellar pre 9/11 leadership that will tarnish his "made for TV" image as a leader. When all is said and done, I have a strong hunch that come next January, John McCain, Newt Gingrich, and/or Fred Thompson will be fighting it out for the nomination. For the good of the country and party, lets hope my hunch is correct.

See Gamecock for exhibit A, my husband and his entire family for exhibit b,c,d.....and so on.
Last I knew, Gingrich and Thompson were not declared candidates.
IIRC, McCain, Gingrich, and Thompson are all divorced, as was Ronald Reagan. So, that is pretty much a moot point, no?
John McCain's credentials for executing the war on terror went out the window with two things. The first, his support of John Fraud during the Swift Boat furor. Two, his anti-torture legislation bull-hockey. In addition to my many other grievances with him (including his Gang of 14), those two are paramount.
When Thompson gets in the race or if Duncan Hunter gets serious about his bid, then maybe I will change my mind. For now, Guiliani gets my vote in the primary. And any Republican will have my support in the general. Even John McCain. As much as I dislike him, he's better than anything the dems will put up.
__________________________________________________

The ultimate determinant in the struggle now going on for the world will not be bombs and rockets but a test of wills and ideas-a trial of spiritual resolve: the values we hold, the beliefs we cherish and the ideals to which we are dedicated.-Reagan

I'll settle for a straight talker anyday.
___________________________________________________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes

___________________________________________________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes

Don't take it too seriously. There are a few who get sufficiently unhinged with Giuliani Derangement Syndrome, that they'd vote for America to lose the war in order to punish the Republican party if it nominated him. Fortunately there aren't enough of those to elect a dog catcher, so they're just entertainment in these threads.

There's a much larger group who are patriotic adults committed to winning the war, who also have a serious objection to Giuliani's views on abortion, gays or guns. In that case it's perfectly reasonable to look for an alternative nominee, who's likely to win the general election and GWOT as Giuliani is, but is more in agreement with their views on social issues.

As I said in another thread, I think it's good for Republicans to beat up on opposing candidates for the nomination. Anyone that can't handle it is unfit to be our nominee in the general election, where it will be a lot tougher. Most Republican voters are adults, who know that politics is a contact sport. We aren't going to cling to grudges after the nomination fight, and vote for America to lose the war because the Republican nominee is "wrong" on some big domestic dispute.

Those that think anyone on the dem side is superior are just fooling themselves. Given the current crop of candidates, Guiliani is our best hope to keep the White House out of the hands of Hillary. And for now, that is enough for me.
___________________________________________________________
The ultimate determinant in the struggle now going on for the world will not be bombs and rockets but a test of wills and ideas-a trial of spiritual resolve: the values we hold, the beliefs we cherish and the ideals to which we are dedicated.-Reagan

Rudy at the top of the ticket, polls very well, huge number of states in his column.

The entire underticket running either with him or to the right of him as a checks and balance on the "big issues".

= Landslide of historic proportions changing the face of national politics for decades, to the right. End of the democrap party.

Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin

I think the best way to whig out the dems is for us to put a black conservative on the ticket and make the election about who will defend America and shared judeo-christian values.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
Starbucks: Coffee, good. Cups, bad, but
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson