[areafiftyone]

You are quite welcome. More and more strict conservatives are going over to Rudy's side. They are starting to realize the WOT trumps social issues. Especially when we have a Democrat Congress and Senate.

[VRWCmember]

They are starting to realize the WOT trumps social issues.

Not if it means that we allow the democrats to shred the 2nd Amendment, redefine marriage, raise taxes, expand government control over areas like health care, and otherwise advance the socialist agenda, emboldened by the fact that the GOP nominated a candidate who has given us and them every reason to believe he will not stand up against them on ANY of those issues. But somehow he will be strong in the war on terror (with a democrat congress opposing him ALL THE WAY on that issue as well) and he will appoint and fight for strict constructionist judges (again with the democrats controlling the senate and never letting any of those nominees see the light of day) so we should jump on the Rudy bandwagon now? I don't think so. You need to pull your head out of the sand (or wherever else it is lodged),

[quantim]

I believe Rudy can sort out priorities - things like gay marriage, abortion, and other issues that many of us see as states' issues that aren't generally pertinent at the federal level for old-fashioned types like myself.

He understands the meaning of: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States" and consequently will not help find things that are not there - and that will reflect in the appointment of replacements in the SCOTUS.

Romney could very well be a good candidate down the road, and the only thing I don't trust about Hunter is that he is one of 'them.'  I distrust legislators, Newt being an exception.  Thankfully, McPain won't make it through the first few primaries.

[William Terrell]

They are starting to realize the WOT trumps social issues.

While preserving our country is important, it can't be the only important thing. It's equally important what kind of country we're preserving.

Stalin fought to preserve his country. Likewise, every despot in history fought to preserve their countries. There is a point beyond which a country should not be preserved, and that point is defined by the condition of the morality and integrity of its people and its government.

Would you fight to preserve a police state, for instance? Or one whose excesses rival that of Sodom?

We best be as careful of our leaders as we are our security, or the first will cost us the second.