[TommyDale]

...And the hits just keep on comin’!

[TommyDale]

"He's toast," said Clemson University political scientist Dave Woodard. "I think it's going to be really hard for him to overcome this in South Carolina."

[Fierce Allegiance]

What a dirtbag. Anyone who gives a damn about The Constitution should avoid this POS like the plague.

[Jake The Goose]

"I tell people what I think. I tell them (to) evaluate me as I am and do not expect them to agree with me on everything. I don't agree with me on everything," Giuliani said. "If that's the most important thing, then I'm comfortable with the fact you won't vote for me."

This is why he will win South Carolina. He has the integrity to remain true to his views - even if we disagree with those views.

[dirtboy]

Hmmm ... Rudy apparently has decided he can foresake the pro-life vote AND the NRA vote.

He's pro-war, and the electorate gets much more anti-war the further leftward one goes.

So just where will Rudy make up the lost pro-life and pro-gun votes? Cemetaries? Oops, the dead vote Dem as well.

[Sans-Culotte]

Well, the only way a Prez can affect whether Roe v Wade is overturned is in the choice of judges for the SCOTUS. This seems to mean Rudy would give us more Souters, Ginzburgs, et al.

[rjp2005]

That’s too bad Rudy. You’re not fit to be President.

[showme_the_Glory]

Uniter? We don’t need no steeking uniters. Vote for me and my latest wife. Rudee the divider.......

[showme_the_Glory]

typical from a NY liberal. Rude and no apologies.

[Moose4]

I agree that abortion should be decided at the state level (as should many other things that currently aren’t). But in order for that to happen, Roe v. Wade has to be overturned and this whole bogus concept of the SCOTUS sticking its nose into state matters has got to be reined in. If Giuliani is willing to go along with that, fine. If not, that’s going to be a problem. Stare decisis is not something that should be used to protect a bad ruling (Dred Scott, anyone?). That’s a cop-out.

I’m pro-life, and disagree strongly with Giuliani on this issue (and on the Second Amendment) but agree with him on others, and do respect him regardless. He’s not my first choice, but if it comes down to it, I’ll hold my nose and vote for him. Right now, the only Republican candidate that I 100% would NOT vote for, even if the alternative was Hitlery or Osama Obama, is John McCain.

}:-)4

[sergeantdave]

I have an individual right to be armed.

Can we use public money to buy me a .357 and a Mossberg?

How about a printing press?

And maybe a lecturn with a Bible?

[rogue yam]

Done and done!

[Spiff]

"If I'm going to appoint strict constructionist judges, which I'm going to do, for the reason that they are going to strictly interpret the Constitution, then, as president, I have to be a strict constructionist," Giuliani said. "The present state of the law on these issues is not something that I would seek to change."

Translation: Rudy thinks he's a "strict construction" and by that he means someone who will continue to support Roe v. Wade.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

I don't understand why you guys just can't start up a RudyRepublic.com or some type of blog for Rudy website, where you can praise Giuliani to your heart's content.

[cdcdawg]

even worse than being “pro choice,” Rudy is pro Roe v. Wade. That is indefensible on legal and intellectual grounds. That leaves only ideology. It means he believes that the Supreme Court can usurp power from the democratically elected branches and the states, as long as it serves the right ideology. Roe is about power. Yeah, I’ll vote for him if it’s him against Hillary or Obama. I hope it doesn’t come to that.

[George W. Bush]

"He's toast," said Clemson University political scientist Dave Woodard. "I think it's going to be really hard for him to overcome this in South Carolina."

No, he's evil and repulsive. He is campaigning to compel us to fund the Left's war upon the unborn children of the poor and minorities.

Just read some of the Sangeresque and essentially eugenic arguments his supporters here at FR post about how the hordes of illiterate and undesirable poor (especially minorities) will overrun the country and vote us into a full Marxist state if abortion is not used to cull them.

It's just repulsive. I'm not sure just how much of this kind of 'free speech' a pro-life forum like FR should be expected to provide.

[rintense]

If this were the only thing Rudy were opposite of on the GOP platform, it wouldn't be that bad. And there are those who are single issue voters on the right, with abortion being their one issue. And that's ok.

But the problem isn't just abortion. It's his views regarding 'regulating' gun ownership- another view contrary to the GOP platform. It's his oh-so waffling views on gay marriage/rights. It's his do-nothing solution to illegal immigration. It's his cut taxes but increase spending approach to fiscal management. It's his growing words that show a terrible lack of understanding of the Constitution and interpretations of law.

Which brings us to the one issue that he does have in common with the GOP platform- the War on Terror and Iraq.

And since I am not a one issue voter, even though I know the WoT is huge, I simply can not lend my support to Rudy- because it isn't one thing: it is many.