Replies

Those who focus on Rudy's divorces and marriages, completely IGNORE Newt's even worse marriages and nasty divorces and his track record, that says far more about them, than whatever Rudy has or has not done or said.

Since Roe V Wade became law, we've had more Republican presidents than Dem ones, and Roe is still the law of the land. Abortion is also a topic that most Americans have way down on the list of what's of major importance.

What those who are attempting to take completely out of context,the burlesques skits, the vast majority of Americans have understood and NOT been turned off by, for more than 300 years. Hairy Leg Shows, especially for charity, have not only been a staple of American culture, from colonial days to the present, but have, during that time, drifted through all social strata. This means that most people understand exactly what Rudy did and that it is c completely disassociated from anything even remotely akin to homosexuality and/or cross dressing.

N.Y.C. and N.Y. state have had pretty strict ( when compared to other parts of this country ) gun laws for at least 100 years.

Rational debate is what we're supposed to engage in. When it crosses that line, which it has and then some, FR is turned into a vile caricature and doesn't do anything but drag this site down.

I have noticed that double standard with regard to Newt Gingrich. The lack of consistency is bewildering.

I think Giuliani provokes a high level of anxiety that results in incredible emotional overflowing. Sometimes that is a good thing for a candidate, but in his case it is not.

Most Americans I know put abortion in their top five concerns. Polls are entertainment but they do not tell me what I can observe in my own world, so I don't see confirmation of your point about most Americans and this issue. Perhaps I will see it after these primaries and the election but not now.

Having Republican presidents alone does not mean that Roe will change. There must be court appointments etc. that turn the tide of judicial review. Of course, if the Republican Presidents had used the Executive Order in the way that Bill Clinton did then they could have changed Roe in a number of ways. But in general Republicans do not like rule by Presidential decree.

You offered: "Since Roe V Wade became law, we've had more Republican presidents than Dem ones, and Roe is still the law of the land. Abortion is also a topic that most Americans have way down on the list of what's of major importance." Do you not see a significant effect in having a Subpreme Court fiat ruling that legalizes the killing of alive unborn children at the simple request of the woman, and the reality that most Americans have lost the ability to comprehend the heinous nature and effects of abortion on demand? How will nominating and then electing a man who has already sold out to the horror as useful actually change directions of this nation?