So Rudy offers NOTHING here.
Since he claims he would appoint justices similar in their judicial philosophy to Alito and Scalia, I would certainly take my chances that he actually would, than accept Hillary who would fill the bench with the likes of Ginsburg.
Oh, that's rich. So the conservative site FR is now PC in your opinion for rejecting liberal viewpoints and attacks on conservative candidates? Woof. Talk about redefining terms.
First, I reject any distinction between liberal and conservative from the social right. A social agenda of issues is neither demonstrative of a conservative, nor does it preclude a conservative from disagreeing with it. The social right has no claim to conservatism, simply by virtue of their social positions.
Second, yes, the rules you have laid out to me seem to indicate that conservative posters must only support certain positions, and if those positions or candidates are not vetted by the social right, they are to suffer the consequences if they use the very same language and tactics freely used by those here on the other side of the issue. That's one of the things we all scream loudly about in academia today. Once you start putting those kinds of limits on open discussion, it ceases to be open, and if you have rules, they should apply to all.
Except there are two problems. First, Rudy has re-defined strict constructionism to allow a judge to uphold Roe. And Rudy has also said a president appoints judges that match his views.
So since Rudy has been so pro-abort over the years, I'm completely unsold that he would appoint judges who would overturn Roe.
First, I reject any distinction between liberal and conservative from the social right. A social agenda of issues is neither demonstrative of a conservative, nor does it preclude a conservative from disagreeing with it. The social right has no claim to conservatism, simply by virtue of their social positions.
Well, I disagree on two levels here as well.
First of all, Reagan basically defined modern conservatism, and his social conservatism was robust. Not having at least some social conservative values makes a professed conservative a two-legged stool (with the other two legs being fiscal and national security). The only way conservatism works is when all three are embraced.
And second, the problems with Rudy go far beyond abortion and gay rights. He's also a gun-grabber. And an authoritarian. And no friend of the Bill of Rights. Rudy is simply too far left in the party - at the far fringes where it becomes difficult to tell him apart from, say, Joe Lieberman.
Second, yes, the rules you have laid out to me seem to indicate that conservative posters must only support certain positions, and if those positions or candidates are not vetted by the social right, they are to suffer the consequences if they use the very same language and tactics freely used by those here on the other side of the issue.
Once again, the rules here have always boiled down to a basic concept - conservative good, liberal bad. If you find that suffocating, so be it. But conservatism happens to be the core guiding mission for this website, and it's tough to pursue a conservative agenda if you're dragging a bunch of liberalism around with you.