I'll vote for Pro-Gun, Pro-Family candidates wherever they're put before me on the ballot.
I just wish some on this forum would stop blaming me for the lack of perfect conservative candidates at the national level. The simple fact is most Americans don't hang out on political forums all day, and have no idea who "Duncan Hunter" is. I do hang out on a political forum all day, and I still couldn't pick him out of a lineup. The fact is, if he wants to be a candidate, he's gonna have to get himself some face time and get known. The other fact is, Giuliani and McCain both have more name recognition, face recognition, and in Giuliani's case, public admiration for their experience. You've got someone better? CATCH UP. But don't blame me for the relative obscurity of the "better candidates" "true conservatives" would rather elect.
On a practical level, I don't think Guiliani, if elected will make a bit of difference on guns or abortion. Abortion has been a non-starter issue even with a pro-life president and Republican majority for most of the last 8. Honestly, I think the country will be ready to make a decision about abortion in the near future, but I don't think it will be because of party politics, it will be because medical technology will have made the decision obvious to everyone. Even the most strident abortion rights supporters will not be able to deny life has begun when it can be seen, recorded, and even cured in the womb. No matter who is president.
And on guns, I think it's also a non-starter issue. Gun control is a local issue, and even in my 'liberal' state of Washington, where we've had shall issue CWP since before it was fashionable, even Democrats don't run on a gun control agenda. Gun grabbing is not a popular idea, not even on the left. Heck, with the current paranoia on the left, the last thing they'd allow is for an any Republican President to take away their guns. They already think camps are being prepared for them. So gun control, on a national level, is a non starter, no matter who is president.
So - what difference does it make who's president? In my opinion, it makes a difference that we can be renewed and recommitted to winning the war in Iraq, and the continuing WOT. It is the only thing that matters. We've sacrificed a lot of good lives in that fight. Too many honorable, valuable lives to let it all be thrown away as a worthless effort not worth winning. We need to find a leader this whole country can follow where it matters. And Rudy Giuliani is the only one I see (yet) who is in the league to gain that kind of across the board respect on National Defense. We remember him from 'that day'. We respected his resolve and example, and would trust him again if we have more difficult days to come. We're not wrong for thinking that. And 'some' conservatives are making NO POINTS with me by insulting either Giuliani or his supporters, but you are beginning to repel me from you.
My two cents.
As to Giuliani, he is completely "pro-choice", and it would be irrational to presume ---no matter what spin Hannity lets put on the topic--- that he would appoint Supreme Court Justices that do not share his view on Roe.
And ultimately, protecting babies here in America is far more important than Iraq.
You've got someone better? CATCH UP.
***We do have someone better. Duncan Hunter. Jimmuh Carter and Bill Clintoon were relatively unknown at this stage of the race when they first ran. All it takes is one good video on Youtube and our candidate will be a household name. And he won't need to shed any baggage the way Rudy McRomney needs to.
Hunter is out there, concentrating his resources in early primary states. It would be a waste of money for him to advertise on, say, KING-5 or KOMO considering where we are in the primary. But the Hunter snowball does seem to be picking up speed and inertia...
On a practical level, I don't think Guiliani, if elected will make a bit of difference on guns or abortion. Abortion has been a non-starter issue even with a pro-life president and Republican majority for most of the last 8. Honestly, I think the country will be ready to make a decision about abortion in the near future, but I don't think it will be because of party politics, it will be because medical technology will have made the decision obvious to everyone. Even the most strident abortion rights supporters will not be able to deny life has begun when it can be seen, recorded, and even cured in the womb. No matter who is president.
You bring an interesting and salient perspective. Excellent point you've made here.
It is, and it isn't.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
All but a few states have similar provisions in their state constitutions.
For instance the one your state of Washington's constitution reads:
The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.” Article 1, Section 24.
So it's also a matter of the rule of law.
Very well said.
Too bad it will go over so many heads.