[dmw]

Typical liberal tactic. Don't deal with the issue at hand, then bring an unrelated person into the debate. It's not very original. Now, why don't you go read the article and ask yourself, and the rest of the Rudybot fans why Rudy appointed all of these liberal judges. Oh, I know, Rudy's record isn't important, it's what he *says* that is important. You can put your head back in the sand now.

[zbigreddogz]

Explain to me how Bush is irrelevant, when Rudy is saying he'd support judges like Alito and Roberts, which are judges that Bush appointed?

Clearly, Bush's appointments at a federal level have been different then his appointments at state level. Why? Same reason as I think Rudy's are likely to be, because the politics of the situation were different. Matter of fact, Bush's lack of good appointments in Texas are much less forgivable then Rudy's, as Texas was a swing state at the time (at least in terms of who it elected to Senate/Governor) while NY was a hardcore D city.

Sorry, you just can't ignore the politics of the situation. Both people did what they needed to do to survive in local politics, Rudy much more so then Bush. That's life. You can ignore it or curse it or whatever, but you won't change it.

Do I know Rudy would appoint good judges? No, but I think it's very highly likely, especially during his first term. He's smart enough to realize he wouldn't get a second term if he didn't appoint a decent judge.

And again, I know one thing for 100% certainty: Hillary, Edwards or Obama will not appoint good judges.