[Mia T]

There is nothing wrong with your thinking during ordinary times. These are not ordinary times. We do not have the luxury of time or circumstance for another clinton. We will not survive another clinton. Indeed, we may yet not survive the first one.

Again I say this: for you to call Giuliani an "almost-hillary" exposes your narrow perspective.

If the CR elects hillary by default as you claim they will, i.e., by not showing up, they will have committed the most anti-life act imaginable.

I guess I give the CR more credit with valuing life than you do.

[ElkGroveDan]

The debate here is not whether or not Hillary would be bad for our country. You are arguing the way liberals do, by beginning the argument with debatable premises and pretending they are facts. It is not an accepted fact that Hillary will be their nominee. It is also not an accepted fact that Giuliani is the only one who could defeat her, or that he could defeat her at all for that matter.

The argument that we are in a crisis and we should abandon all of our usual instincts is an old leftist tactic, whether you know it or not. Liberals are also fond of the appeal to emotion where they urge people to abandon their instincts, "There is nothing wrong with your thinking during ordinary times. These are not ordinary times." Critical thinking tends complicate liberalism.

I'm not willing to sacrifice all of my deeply held beliefs, and the causes I've fought for the past twenty years on this vague wing-and-a-prayer mentality that is superficial and emotion driven.

I'll say it again. The best way to lose the election is to turn off the Republican base by nominating someone they fundamentally disagree with on so many important policy areas.