I understand where you are coming from.
Consider this though. If we keep the presidency it isn't a matter of if Roe v Wade is overturned, but when. That will not eliminate abortion in the United States-- overturning it sends the abortion issue back to the states where it belongs.
So abortion law in California, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts and so forth is not going to change anytime soon.
Now, consider an Iran that goes nuclear and pumps out many nukes a year in an effort to destroy the Great Satan and the Little Satan. While Dems pussyfoot with talk, talk, and more talk, Team Ayatollah gets 30 nukes across our porous border, puts them on light planes over Houston, Atlanta, San Francisco, New York, Los Angeles, Miami, Dallas, St. Louis, Denver, Kansas City, Seattle, Washington D.C., Boston, Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Pheonix, San Antonio, Oklahoma City, Memphis, Indianapolis, Cleveland, Columbus---- BOOM --- the United States of America is reduced to its knees.
This stuff matters. Unknown fantasy candidate 'x' may be just as good as Gingrich, or Giuliani, or Allen on defense, but if we can't win, it won't be worth a hill of beans. I'm sure the Muslims will end the abomination of abortion with their sharia law, but at what cost?
Dear JHBowden,
" If we keep the presidency it isn't a matter of if Roe v Wade is overturned, but when."
No, it isn't. I don't believe that Mr. Giuliani would appoint justices who understand that the Constitution does not enshrine any right to murder unborn babies, and who understand that, therefore, Roe must go. I don't believe it for a moment.
I'm not persuaded that Mr. Romney would, either.
Yet, the next president will likely replace two or three justices, perhaps even four. Justice Stevens is unlikely to last another six or ten years. Justice Ginsburg, neither. Justice Scalia turns 70 soon. Will he last until 2016?
So, electing Mr. Giuliani, and possibly Mr. Romney, might give a new lease on "life" to Roe.
"That will not eliminate abortion in the United States-- overturning it sends the abortion issue back to the states where it belongs."
I haven't asserted otherwise.
I've often said, overturning Roe isn't the end of the fight, but rather just the beginning.
But we gotta get to the beginning to start saving any significant number of unborn children.
"Now, consider an Iran that goes nuclear and pumps out many nukes a year in an effort to destroy the Great Satan and the Little Satan. While Dems pussyfoot with talk, talk, and more talk, Team Ayatollah gets 30 nukes across our porous border, puts them on light planes over Houston, Atlanta, San Francisco, New York, Los Angeles, Miami, Dallas, St. Louis, Denver, Kansas City, Seattle, Washington D.C., Boston, Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Pheonix, San Antonio, Oklahoma City, Memphis, Indianapolis, Cleveland, Columbus---- BOOM --- the United States of America is reduced to its knees."
I don't really think your scenario is realistic.
"This stuff matters. Unknown fantasy candidate 'x' may be just as good as Gingrich, or Giuliani, or Allen on defense, but if we can't win, it won't be worth a hill of beans."
I'd vote for either Mr. Gingrich or Mr. Allen. I'm unsure Mr. Gingrich can win the general election, but I'd certainly vote for him. As for Mr. Allen, he's far from perfect for us social conservatives, but my standards are pretty low. ;-)
Just not low enough to accept a Democrat liberal with an "R" pasted on his back, as in the case of Mr. Giuliani.
And perhaps not low enough for Mr. Romney, either, although his attempts at being a social conservative at least win him points for trying.
sitetest