Replies

My personal opinion is that IF (and that's a big if) Giuliani could get the Republican nomination, it would herald a return to a more traditional form of conservatism - pro-law enforcement, fiscally conservative, smaller government etc. without legislating social issues whatsoever.

But we have the problem of judges legislating from the bench on social issues. That's why they've become such poarizing issues. Supreme court justices go to law school at very elite schools that are located in very blue cities like Boston. They ram their social agendas down everyone else's throats, and it is very difficult to counteract their decisions. Roe v Wade was terrible consitutional law, and it short circuited the political process. The Supreme Court made a hot button issue when it forced the most radical abortion law in the world on the whole country rather than follow the tenth amendment and let the states make their own laws. States are quit diffferent from one another. Attempting to force laws on the whole country that could only be democtratically enacted in Boston, New York City, or San Francisico is what created the polarization on social issues that we see today.

Social issues will be legislated anyway. The Constitution says that powers not enumerated in it are reserved to the states or to the people. From a strict constitutional perspective, Roe vs Wade should be overturned and be decided in a series of votes by the states. Liberals don't want this as it is likely that most forms of abortion would be outlawed.

Regards, Ivan

You have encapsulated my feelings exactly. We may come to different conclusions in the end, but the Court System has overstepped their boundaries on too many social issues.

As for Rudy vs Social Conservatives, I come out with the following opinion. I could vote for Rudy (I have to hear a clarification of his partial - birth abortion stance first), but in my opinion I am much more OK with a moderate President than I am with a moderate Congressman, or Senator. After all, they write the laws. In 2008 my two main concerns will be the War on Terror, and Fiscal responsibility. From what I know Rudy fits these two things. I am in no way set in my decision, I am just not appalled at the thought of him being POTUS. He also exudes leadership. We, in America, need that. My next point may get me flamed, but here it goes anyway.... I am pretty sick of self - righteous politicians speaking moral absolutism when we know they are being hypocritical. I have more tolerance of a sinner Rudy, than of a sinner Newt. One never claimed to be the social savior, while the other did.

One of the things that attracted me to President Bush (although in my opinion he failed) was his initial stance of helping the Countries moral faults. He didn't try and say that illegitimate children, or their parents, were evil. He just pointed out that statistically those children have a greater chance of not succeeding. He wanted to promote marriage, not as a religious means, as much as a way to improve America. He didn't say that the Gay couple that live next door are immoral, but he did say that Marriage is between a man and a woman. He never put down the sinners, he tried to help, and respect them. And although he failed, he still tried.

We must all remember that although a President may lead our individual political parties, at the end of the day he is the leader of ALL of America, Republicans, and Democrats. Maybe a moderate is the best.