Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Spiff
So much for the claim by some Rudy boosters that the President can't impact abortion.

Clinton vetoed the ban (which Rudy supported) and Bush signed it.

Bush's judges were the difference in upholding the ban.

9 posted on 04/18/2007 7:17:16 AM PDT by dirtboy (Duncan Hunter 08/But Fred would also be great)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: dirtboy

Big news


13 posted on 04/18/2007 7:18:17 AM PDT by ClaireSolt (Have you have gotten mixed up in a mish-masher?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: dirtboy

Frankly, in order to get a majority, I almost hope Stevens dies of natural causes in the next six months or so.

Morbid, but we need something to happen here or I fear we won’t have a chance again.


63 posted on 04/18/2007 7:28:50 AM PDT by rwfromkansas (http://xanga.com/rwfromkansas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: dirtboy

Amen.


73 posted on 04/18/2007 7:30:11 AM PDT by jveritas (Support The Commander in Chief in Times of War)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: dirtboy

“So much for the claim by some Rudy boosters that the President can’t impact abortion.”

He can, but ONLY if he has a Republican Congress. No way Bush could have got his nominees through a Democratic Senate. And unless a Republican candidate can win blue or purple states—which Rudy alone can do—there won’t be a Republican Senate. So think about it. Rudy has the potential to win big—and kick Reid and Pelosi off their thrones. No one else has this potential. And by the way, he has promised to nominate justices in the mold of Roberts and Alito, if elected. I believe him. And so does Ted Olson who supports him and who ought to know.


228 posted on 04/18/2007 8:11:08 AM PDT by writeblock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: dirtboy
That needs to be repeated!

Clinton vetoed the ban (which Rudy supported) and Bush signed it.

239 posted on 04/18/2007 8:14:30 AM PDT by airborne (Freedom is worth fighting for !! And I'm in a fighting mood !! HUNTER 2008 !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: dirtboy
"Bush's judges were the difference in upholding the ban."

So lets hear from the 'conservatives' that have been screaming for 6 years that George W. Bush isn't 'conservative' enough for them. Hopefully, some of the hotheads may finally come to realize that getting elected is far more important than bashing each other and 'RINO's' which ultimately allows liberals to take command.

317 posted on 04/18/2007 8:48:26 AM PDT by Buffalo Head (Illigitimi non carborundum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: dirtboy

Some of you must be ticked off that Rudy agrees with this great ruling.....


602 posted on 04/18/2007 11:18:54 AM PDT by Fawn (http://www.hartzvictims.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: dirtboy
Clinton vetoed the ban (which Rudy supported) and Bush signed it.

Dirtboy, that sentence, at least to me, is not clear. Are you saying that Rudy supported the ban or that he supported Clinton's vetoing the ban?

747 posted on 04/18/2007 3:47:25 PM PDT by OldPossum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson