[paulat]

Yeah, well I don't think I'm willing to give up 50% or more either. If we can't fight for our conservative values in the primary, when can we?

I understand...thanks for the reply.

I just think we don't worry about states' issues with a national canidate. When a candidate is a state-guy...he might pander...but when it comes down to the REAL things he can control...it's the judiciary.

The Presidency doesn't control the 2nd Amendment or Roe v. Wade at all. But he has the ability to appoint judges who do.

Just my 2-cents...I am honored that you responded.

BTW...did you see Rush used my joke today?! From OUR thread!!! LOL!!!

[paulat]

I just might add...we need to support a candidate...not on states' rights...but also on national security.

I understand the vitriol here on these threads.

But we should have two goals...the judiciary and national security.

The states will have to deal with other issues themselves.

People like Duncan Hunter will NOT be elected to higher office. They should make themselves useful at other levels.

Other folks with national experience can make coat-tails for much good to happen.

Again...just my 2-cents.

[Jim Robinson]

States rights is a constitutional issue as are individual rights. The degree a president believes in and fights for life & liberty issues will determine whether or not we regain any of our lost freedoms or even hold the line against further erosion. If he's a strong government type, we lose. If he fights for individual rights and decentralized government we gain. Rudy seems to be on the side of strong government and against individual rights. Must be the prosecutor blood.

[dirtboy]

The Presidency doesn't control the 2nd Amendment or Roe v. Wade at all.

I guess the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 was passed without Clinton's signature. And Clinton didn't veto two PBA bans either.

Any more nonsense you wish to spread? Those Rudy talking points are getting stale.