We could go on and on.
You feel that Rudy is an acceptable social conservative - on what basis, I can't imagine.
He's for gay rights, he supports illegal aliens, he's anti-gun, he supports late term abortions, he has backed "hate crimes" laws, and I haven't the foggiest idea where the man stands on other hot button issues like the death sentence and affirmative action.
When he says he is going to appoint strict constructionists to the Court, I can only judge his interpretation of thar term by his social views - and based on his social views, his definition of "strict constructionist" is open to question.
You say he is a conservative on foreign policy.
What does that translate into? Will he go after the Iranians who are working on a nuclear bomb? Will he support Israel against Hezbollah and Hamas? Will he get tough with the Palestinians? Will he do something to stop Islamic infiltration in America? Does he believe we are locked in a battle for cultural survival with international Islam?
What exactly ARE Giuliani's positions on foreign policy?
How about the U.N.?
Can you provide links?
"Plus, the President has very little influence on social issues."
The President has a very great influence on social issues. He appoints federal court judges, he can push legislation, he can veto bills he opposes, he can set an example by his opinion on social matters. He can influence cases before SCOTUS through his Attorney General.
" I truly believe Rudy will win the nomination. "
At this point, things look pretty rosy for Rudy in the nomination process. McCain has imploded, and Romney's flip-flopping has marginalizewd him. But the race is just beginning and there are other viable candidtes out there - Hunter and a very coy Gingrich for example.
And I sincerely believe, if through some manipulation of numbers in the nomination process, Giuliani DOES get nomianted, his social record will lose him the bulk of the Red States.
Can he change this? Yes, by restating his past postion in light of the office he held - the mayor of a very liberal, liberal city.
But in my opinion, he won't because he has demonstrated a streak of obstinacy and his past views truly reflect his personal opinions, and were not pragmatic stands taken due to circumstances.
I didn't say Rudy was a social conservative. I said fiscal, domestic, and foreign policy.
Rudy has came out and said that we need to secure the border and he said he is against partial birth abortions.
He is against Aff. Action. I'm almost positive he is for the death penalty.
Rudy said he supports strict constructionist in the mold of Roberts and Scalia. Ted Olson confirmed that this is what Rudy has always believed. We know what Ted Olson's idea of a strict constructionist is and I know we can trust Ted Olson. This is what Mr. Olson said, "I've known (Rudy Giuliani) for 26 years and we've talked about this many times. He feels very strongly that people like Justice Scalia, Chief Justice Roberts, Sam Alito, Clarence Thomas, are the type of people that he would put on the court…I'm quite convinced that this is a genuine viewpoint that he has."
Will he go after the Iranians who are working on a nuclear bomb? Yes
Will he support Israel against Hezbollah and Hamas? Yes, Haartz came out and said that Rudy is their preferred candidate.
Will he get tough with the Palestinians? This is a man that threw Arafat out of a NYC function in 1995 and called the man a terrorist when Clinton was trying to be a buddy to Arafat. So what do you think
Does he believe we are locked in a battle for cultural survival with international Islam? Do you watch the news. Yes!
As far as social issues, other than court appointments, the President doesn't have much influence on social issues.To begin with, Rudy is AGAINST gay marriage. On Hannity and Colmes on February 5th he said, “Marriage should be between a man and a woman. [It's] exactly the position I've always had.” Now as far as homos go, personally, I disagree with their life style but as long as they do what they do in the privacy of their own home I really don't care and nobody else should either, especially not the federal government. The POTUS doesn't have the power to stop people from being gay. And he surely shouldn't be interferring in people's private lives. And to top things off, marriage is a state issue. So therefore voting on the basis of this issue doesn't make much sense.
Rudy is not the abortion on demand liberal people make him out to be. He is against partial birth abortions, contrary to the misinformation some on here are posting. On Hannity Rudy said “Partial-birth abortion, I think that's going to be upheld(by the USSC). I think that ban is going to be upheld. I think it should be.” And as soon as Rudy got finished saying this, Hannity acknowledged, “There's a misconception that you supported partial-birth abortion”. So there we have, Rudy is against partial birth abortions. Rudy is also for parental notification. He also acknowledged this on Hannity. So Rudy certainly isn’t for abortion on demand.
In general on abortion, we have a pro-life President now but we are still having abortions. No president has the power to stop abortion. Rudy has already said he supports strict constructionist judges like John Roberts. He constantly praised the President for appointing Roberts and Alito. On Hannity Rudy said “I think the appointment of judges that I would make would be very similar to, if not exactly the same as, the last two judges that were appointed. Chief Justice Roberts is somebody I work with, somebody I admire, Justice Alito someone I knew when he was U.S. attorney, also admire. If I had been president over the last four years, I can't think of any, you know, that I'd do anything different with that.” Assuming Rudy gets elected President and appoints Roberts-like justices then maybe Roe v. Wade will get overturned. But even if it does get overturned we know that this won’t stop all abortions. The abortion issue would then revert back to the states and does anyone really think California would outlaw abortions? Being pragmatic in our thinking we all know we can't completely stop abortions. Therefore voting solely on this issue very unpragmatic. I hate abortions like everyone else on here but I realize that regardless of how many pro-life presidents we elect, its just not going to stop.
Hunter is not viable and Gingrich would get killed in the general. Rudy would win the general election. In the latest Rasmussen poll, Rudy wins independents 64%-27 over Hillary, win 14% of Democrats, and wins 88% of Republicans(Bush won 91% in 2004). Michael Barone is the best elections expert in this country and I'm not going to question him. The Red States won't go for Hillary, no way at all!
I respect your opinions and I'm with you in disagreeing with abortion and gays. However, politics is not perfect in the least. Sometimes you have to compromise. Ronald Reagan understood this. He wrote this in his autobiography An American Life: "When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn't like it. "Compromise" was a dirty word to them and they wouldn't face the fact that we couldn't get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don't get it all, some said, don't take anything. I'd learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933: 'I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.' If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that's what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it."
I doubt any of this has changed your mind but that's ok. You're entitled to your point of view just as I am. You have been respectful and not resorted to name calling as some on here have and I thank you for that. Have a good night.