[Melas]

JimRob has been more than forthcoming in allowing freewheeling debate at this point in the nomination process. This tends to be full-contact season. Too bad some folks try to turn that into martrydom - especially when those folks hardly have clean hands themselves.

Well, I'm still here, so apparently you're correct on this. I'm extremely encouraged. I want to be clear, I don't necessarily agree on Rudy's positions on abortion or the second amendment. I am however convinced that nothing is going to change under a Rudy administration or a Hunter administration. These issues really aren't on my radar.

[Jim Robinson]

But they ARE on the radar of millions of Christian conservatives and second amendment supporters, first amendment supporters, border security supporters, etc.

A president has the bully pulpit and as leader of the party has a considerable amount of influence and arm twisting leverage over the legislative agenda, plus he wields the veto pen, and has a direct hand in the appointments process.

A pro life and liberty president is in a position to defend conservative priniples and actually advance the cause.

A pro abortion, pro government regulation and restriction guy will be destructive to the cause.

Just the act of actually electing a social liberal from the Republican party would severely damage the conservative movement. Electing a social liberal to the presidency would be disastrous for conservatism.

Don't know why FReepers cannot see this danger.