Easy. Guili can be restrained by his party and the party's members. What you will see is no action on abortion for 4 or 8 years if Guili gets elected. It’s more of a prevent defense until the next election when you will have the opportunity to elect someone more to your liking.
Hillary will have no such restraints. If she gets it it will be open season on abortion legislation and judges. IF the dems continue to have a majority in both houses, you can kiss any progress you’ve made on your issue for the last twenty years goodbye.
Guili will keep things in stasis, Hillary will be pedal to the medal. Take your pick.
Sorry Bob, but the next President will get as many as 4 appointments to the S.C. and if it is Rudy or Hillary, the results will be identical: More living Constitution B.S.; making law from the bench; citing foreign law to overturn our Constitution; and Roe v. Wade on steroids set in cement.
You have things backward. Giuliani is far more likely to get liberal legislation passed than Hillary. Liberal legislation promoted by Giuliani will meet no resistance from Republicans while the same legislation would be filibustered by Republicans if Hillary were President.
A Giuliani Presidency would further diminish the number of Republicans in Congress while a Hillary Presidency likely would return the GOP to the majority in Congress.
You don't seem to understand that liberalism had advanced more under George W. Bush than it ever did under Bill Clinton because of the factors I just mentioned. Bush has expanded government at the fastest rate since Lyndon Johnson because Republicans refused to stop socialism pushed by the leader of their own party. We got a balanced budget and welfare reform under Clinton because Republicans took back Congress.
“It’s more of a prevent defense until the next election when you will have the opportunity to elect someone more to your liking.”
The only thing the “prevent defense” prevents is winning.
We have the opportunity NOW to nominate someone more to our liking and the PTB are trying to force a pro-gay, pro-baby murder (on OUR dime) anti-gun SOCIALIST ON US!
Pray tell, just HOW can we expect that to be ANY DIFFERENT in 4 to 8 years???!!!
This same argument was advanced with regards to W on a number of his clearly liberal pet projects. Notice, that those inhibitory factors not only failed to stop him from steam-rolling ahead on them, he risked splitting the Party asunder ("I'm a Uniter, not a Divider"... notice we haven't heard that drivel for some time from him, heh.), plus, he has interfered with the State grass-roots selections of their own representatives, trying to "Top-Down" direct selections...and hence we get Norm Colemans and other phoneys who are not conservative. But democrats to the core, who wanted power now, and were willing to mouth whatever the Prez said, to get his backing. At least for a while.
Yeah, right. Folks used the same argument with Schwarzenegger who has joined with Democrats in implementing their agenda and marginalizing conservatives all the way.
The way to fight liberalism is to be strongly aligned against it, not let it into your own backyard.
Seems like I heard this song before. Since I've been old enough to exercise my right to vote, my choices have been: Reagan, Bush, Bush, Dole, Bush, Bush. So we can discount the incomparable President Reagan. 2008 may well end up being more of the same.
The only thing I have to show for 24 years of compromise was the Contract for America. So you'll excuse me if I resist signing up for another round.