No, I do understand what you’re saying. The problem is what are we gaining removing all standards of a candidate’s morality and ideology by nominating a liberal to face Hillary simply to “stop her” ? Frankly, if we’re going to elect a liberal President, just let the rodents have it. A Republican enacting a liberal agenda would be worse than anything a President Hillary could do - since with Hillary there, we can actively oppose her as a united front — with Rudy, it would just be endless internecine battles while the rodents snicker and clean up at the next election. We saw that happen every single time with these RINO Governors in umpteen states weakening the state parties to the point of moribundity (NJ) or total death (MA). Look how bad it has gotten with the GOP having to go up against our current President on shamnesty !
I guess I just don’t see Rudy the same way you do. He did a great job cleaning up crime in NYC while the liberals called him a fascist. He’s a capitalist. And no matter what you read, no way is Wade going to be overturned; and if it is, the great majority of state legislatures will make it legal.
I see Rudy G., will all his minuses far better than Hillary, Obama, Edwards. The Dems will centainly nominate one of those three, include, maybe Gore.
That's been my question since RG was 'annointed' as the GOP nom. I just heard a talking head say that Bush's approval rating is 3x that of Congress... so why are Republican's so willing to stomp on conservative candidates??
If there were no Thompson or Hunter in the race, then I'd consider Rudy. You would think the Rep. nom race would be between just those two, with some Ron Paul thrown in for humor. Upside down and backwards, IMHO.