Posted on 02/03/2007 1:17:10 PM PST by BunnySlippers
Great -- then he'd be better off running as an Independent.
More harm has been done by claims to "pragmatism" or "realism" than most "isms" you could name.
And those who call principled conservatives "all-or-nothing extremists" are quite suspect, in my book.
My experience is that folks who preach pragmatism and realism are in fact just shortsighted nigh unto blindness. They worship at the altar of selfish short-term gains, never realizing that the mess of potage they're slurping down is at the expense of their heritage and their posterity's blessings.
P.S. -- that wasn't the evidence I asked for. I specifically asked for evidence to support your statement that independents/moderates want to "win the war in Iraq."
That explains a lot.
How does your link to the top of this thread answer my question?
Could you please define "strict constructionist" and provide evidence that Rudy fits that description?
This article does neither, IMO.
How do you know what her goal was?
Anyway, asked and answered.
From Wikipedia - "strict construction (narrow construction) n. interpreting the Constitution based on a literal and narrow definition of the language without reference to the differences in conditions when the Constitution was written and modern conditions, inventions, and societal changes. By contrast "broad construction" looks to what someone thinks was the "intent" of the framers' language and expands and interprets the language extensively to meet current standards of human conduct and complexity of society."
Sorry, but IMHO, that definitely leaves Rudy out
I went to your link and found them deleted also. If you can freepmail them to me I would like to decide for myself. regards
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.