This was a rational thought six months ago before Rudy tanked.
I don’t know if Rudy will be able to recover his campaign or not, but I do think he means it when he says he would appoint strict constructionist judges. I don’t see any reason to doubt it.
But in the real world, it doesn’t matter what the next President thinks about abortion. Whether pro-life or pro-abortion the President will have no effect on the number of abortions performed.
No way, who needs Miguel Estrada or Ted Olson’s opinions?
Let’s go with McCain he campaigns against conservatives, but we just know he does not mean it!
(LOL)
Rudolph also made promises to his several wives.
FGS
How many times is this BS balloon going to be floated?
Dang me, dang me
gonna take a rope
and hang me, hang me
from the highest tree
Oh, Rooty don’t you try
for me.
Uh, I am done. He would also go for taxpayer funded abortion, even said he would pay for one for his own daughter. He would march in front of the NAMBLA banner, he would not even try to protect marriage, he has proven he will go for gun grabbing, he has a personal life that resembles a sleazy soap opera etc.
I could add to that, but I am busy.
Since Rudy will never be president, it’s all moot and irrelevant. I am struck by the notion that a person can say they’re “not confident” that abortion represents, at the very least, a killing, but a murder because it is done for no other cause than convenience. Once unimagineable advances in medical technology have, as far as I can see, made such mythical fancies nothing more than positions taken without information. “Opinions” or “confidence” (or lack thereof) which are not supported by available scientific evidence are meaningless.
I’m still hoping for a couple of SC exits this spring. One can wish.
“Message to Religious Conservatives: Giuliani Would Appoint Solid Supreme Court Justices”
The man would pay for the murder of his own grandchild but he wouldn’t lie to get my vote. Is that what I’m supposed to swallow here?
I like Rudy better than Romney.
No that's not true. The Republicans' era of the "Contract With America" was what brought the deficit down.
Rudy wouldn’t know a constructionist judge if he met one. Since Rudy has no clue about the constitution (especially where gun rights are concerned), how would he know if a judge is a constructionist, or not?
As for those who say he has good advisors... again, how would he know?
He made New York safe they say. Bahgdad was safe under Saddam (or so we are told). Police states usualy do have safe streets.
When defending his anti-2d amendment record on the Hannity show he clearly stated, on two separate occasions, that gun-control was a “states rights issue”. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of the Bill of Rights. But I am supposed to believe he will know a constructionist judge when he sees one and then stand behind that nomination when the Dems give him both barrels.
Not buying it.
It doesn’t take a constitution to respect life. And apparently, the best constitition ever written can’t protect the most innocent blood from a government of evil and corrupt men, answerable to no one but God, determined to sacrifice it.
This headline needs a barf alert.
Re-draft Duncan Hunter into the Presidential Race
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1958247/posts
If you believe this then I got a bridge to sell ya...
1. Huckabee
2. Romney
3. Rudy
4. McCain
5. Obama
6. Hillary
On Judicial Appointments, the only area I like Huckabee over the others. On the war on terror, taxes, trade, global warming, I put him just a notch above Obama.
I really coulda gone for Giuliani early out. But then and went he said that he was pro-abortion-licentiousness in the same breath he said he was a strict constructionist. Anyone who would say that is too much an idiot to get my vote, even if I didn’t disagree with him on moral grounds.