Yep...we traded Rudy for a pro-illegal alien, pro-open borders, pro-NAFTA, pro-taxes, anti-bill of rights, pro-big government John McCain.
Congrats! But at least he’s against abortion so I guess we should all vote for him!
Abortion should be a non-issue in presidential politics. The White House can’t do anything about abortion. You can elect the most anti-abortion, pro-life candidate in the nation and he is powerless to do anything. Sure he can appoint judges, but with a Democrat congress? They will never allow a judge to be confirmed that support abolishing Roe vs Wade.
Gay marriage amendment. Again, the White House is powerless. In order for an amendment to pass, it must be approved by 2/3rds of each house of congress plus 3/4th of the state legislatures. The president plays no role.
Taxes, size of government, foreign policy, defense, economy, immigration, etc... these are issues the president has power over and can influence directly.
Is it time for a new party yet? Never have I faced such a terrible choose. Clintin-Obama?, McCain, God help the USA, rest in peace GOP.
You may be a newbie here and will get pummeled for saying anything good about Rudy, but I generally agree with you. Except for McCain being prolife, everything else about him is negative in my book. Rudy, aside from being bad on the social issues and immigration, was mostly o.k. for the others, especially the WOT. A bad choice either way between him and Juan McCain.
Jerry, you're sadly mistaken.
President Reagan implemented the Mexico City policy, and George W. reinstated it in 2001 (after Clinton rescinded it) that kept $ going into the international abortion industry coffers. Then in the early 80s, Reagan came out with a book, Abortion: The Conscience of a Nation...showing an American president could use his bully pulpit to favor life in the womb!
You can elect the most anti-abortion, pro-life candidate in the nation and he is powerless to do anything.
I wouldn't call the Mexico City policy implementations "powerless." I wouldn't call a POTUS hitting up some of the funding of the domestic side of the abortion industry powerless, either--something within the reach of a POTUS. Also, a pro-life POTUS even working with a Democratic Congress can keep radical pro-abort justices off of the Supreme Court.
“Abortion should be a non-issue in presidential politics.”
The purpose of government is to ensure our rights, chief of which is the “unalienable” right to life.
The 5th amendment’s Due Process clause and the 14th amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection clauses REQUIRE the federal and state governments to protect innocent human life.
Abortion, and defending innocent human life, are presidential “issues.”
The president can do more than promote a human life amendment. He can advocate for, and sign, the Right to Life Amendment. It is his duty.
Abortion should be a non-issue in presidential politics. The White House can’t do anything about abortion. You can elect the most anti-abortion, pro-life candidate in the nation and he is powerless to do anything. Sure he can appoint judges, but with a Democrat congress? They will never allow a judge to be confirmed that support abolishing Roe vs Wade.
But then, the president can simply leave the position vacant - which would leave the libs in a position to be able to get a tie, at best, when Kennedy votes with them. Which would leave the lower court's ruling in place, so worst case the libs only win half the time that Kennedy goes with them. And since abortion actually cuts electorally in favor of conservatives, it should be possible to make electoral hay out of it.Problem is, of course, that McCain is out for McCain and not for the Republican Party.
But it's moot since there won't be a McCain Administration. Either on the day of his nomination, or in October at the latest, Big Journalism will suddenly notice that McCain is old, ugly, Keating-5 corrupt, and ill-tempered. And we'll look back fondly on 1996 when we had a candidate who had a chance . . .