[Mia T]

“What does it achieve to survive the threat of Islamic terrorism if we do it at the cost of murdering our own children?”—Cicero

Your premise is hyperbolic and false. Notwithstanding my point about the coming mooting of abortion by technology, if Rudy is president, we will get judges who are strict constructionists. If hillary clinton is president, we will surely get pro-abortionist judges. Anyone concerned about abortion should, first and foremost, do everything to keep that woman out of the Oval Office.

Moreover, prioritizing, to mean anything, must reflect reality. Your prioritizing is the precise inversion of reality. The question that begs to be asked is this one:

“What does it achieve to have a pro-life candidate if that means we will not survive the threat of Islamic (and domestic) terrorism?”

[BlackElk]

The question means that the questioner is out of touch with reality. We will defeat domestic terrorism rather easily. We will defeat Islamofascisti with some difficulty but defeat them we will. With the domestic evil of abortion, we have been at it for 34 years now since Herod Blackmun and his homicidal six pro-abort brethren on SCOTUS crammed babykilling in the tens of millionms down our throats. Still,there is no shortage of those who find those babies just soooooooo inconvenient, even in the atrophied Rockefeller wing of the GOP, and want the GOP to surrender on morals. No sale.

[BlackElk]

Rudy would not recognize a "strict constructionist" if one were to jump up and bite him. Neither would most of his supporters. He might be dependable on war (I actually think he would be). He is NOT dependable on guns, babies, marriages, taxes, judges and dozens of other issues but, if he were dependable, it would be our enemies who would depend upon his heresies on such matters.

Speaking of hyperbola, it is perfectly ridiculous to suppose that liberals (any liberals!) incuding Giuliani are MORE dependable even on war than are conservatives. The nonsense that we have to nominate a social issue surrnder monkey to beat Her Satanic Majesty or any other Demonrat, was destroyed by Reagan's massive victories despite identical wailing and moaning from the Rockefeller/Ford/Dole types.

[Cicero]

Yes, I supported Rudy for a while, because I agree he is a strong leader. He has certainly talked about “strict constructionist judges.” But what does that phrase actually mean, if he later says that there is a constitutional right to abortion, and even a constitutional right to have the government pay for an abortion? No originalist or strict constructionist could possibly think that.

In other words, it depends what he means by “strict construction.” He also has shown little or no understanding of the meaning of the Second Amendment. Not much good saying he’ll support strict constructionists if his idea of the Constitution is more like Souter’s than Alito’s.

Combine that with his past record as a pro-abortion extremist, and it’s just not enough to rely on.