[Wissa]

I must say that when push comes to shove a conservative will vote the R ticket... The Dem party has not a whiff of conservatism in it. No true conservative will put a Dem in the WH.... if you do shame on you.

So you think all the liberals were right to support Bill Clinton and his corruption just because he wore the same letter on his jersey as they did?

I don't buy that.

[La Enchiladita]

Do you think the Democrats are saying, If Richardson (or Edwards, etc.) doesn’t get the nomination, I’m not voting Dem? I mean, really.

[LexBaird]

So you think all the liberals were right to support Bill Clinton and his corruption just because he wore the same letter on his jersey as they did? I don't buy that.

If the USSC had a couple more strict constructionists on the bench, I might could see you POV. But giving the Dems the Senate, White House, and 2-3 SC Justices is right out.

Anyone who claims that on the one hand Right to Life or Federalism or the 2nd A is their #1 issue, and on the other hand claims they will not vote for the Republican if "their guy" isn't the pick, just to teach us all a lesson about taking SoCons for granted, needs to reexamine their priorities. The number one, a plus, most effective thing the President can do on those issues is to pick the next two Supreme Court Justices and make them strict constructionists. I don't want any Dem making those choices.

Except for McCain, who torpedoed such appointments in a Senate power play, and Guliani, who has some questionable statements on Constitutional theory, any of the GOP candidates can be trusted to pick good judges for the USSC. And those two have at least given campaign lip service to the idea. Heck, I'd rather see Ron Paul on the USSC than Ginsberg. At least I know he's read the Constitution recently.