Redstate

I'd ask him to define "good on that" with relation to school choice. Because, as it stands, we've had precious few Republicans making much effort to move school choice forward.

GWB signed what he touted as the biggest federal education reform since Head Start...and barely even mentioned the word "choice" in the deliberations.

Granted, I prefer such programs to be activated and administered at the local (or, at worst, state) level rather than by the federal government. But, still, it would be nice to see some political leadership on that.

______________________________________
Social Security Choice - Club For Growth

I don't support anyone.
Please see this article I wrote: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=19537
It's similar to Erick's "they all suck" piece but written for polite company

Thanks for the insight. I was just curious - I'm a newbie to the blogosphere.

Right now, I characterize myself as a Gingrich guy, but of the "big 3" I find Rudy to be the leader for my vote.

------------------------------
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same." - Ronald Reagan

thanks Amanda. my issue right now is that none of the candidates seem to be as trustworthy or have the Vision, the sense that the Presidency is there to do Big Things, that Bush has (even if some of the Big Things he's done of necessity pushed aside some Big Things he came into office wanting to do). right now, Mitt Romney is the one that seems most likely to grow into that vision. there are concerns about sincerity and trustworthiness, but they seem no worse than they are for any other right now, and he also projects some reassurance, the most possibility of earning trust in the future.

movement conservatives have had a pro-life, anti-gay marriage president in front of a Republican congress for the past 6 years and gotten .... nothing, really.

I'd argue that a governor's beliefs on such things are more important than a president's -- particularly if the candidate in question can be trusted to appoint conservative judges.

The conservative movement should look for a fiscally conservative president who is strong on defense and appoints the right federal judges. Those are the things a president has the most sway over.

I have never understood why somebody would pin the presidency on abortion and gay rights -- neither seems relevant to the job. That comment applies to both conservatives and liberals.

--
We would also like to know your advice for somebody like my daughter, who's going to graduate in two years, advice that you would give a young person.

SEC. RUMSFELD: Advice for a young person. Study history.

The difference between someone who focuses a presidential campaign on welfare and education and someone who focuses it on gay marriage is that the former is an adult and the latter is not.

There's only one place that the President can really have a major on these two issues, and that's through judicial appointments.

Rudy, a former federal prosecutor, has already expressed his admiration for the President's Roberts and Alito picks, and I believe him. With Ginsburg and Stevens, the most likely upcoming vacancies, holding out until the next election, the next president will have the chance to truly re-shape the Court by the two most liberal justices on the bench.

Those who really want to save the unborn will back a candidate who understands the importance of the judiciary - as Rudy does - and who will appoint judges that will impact those policies - as I believe Rudy would. Those who care more about who that candidate used to live with than what kind of judges they would appoint - we'll, I'd hate to have to explain that choice to the children who might otherwise have been saved had we beaten President Hillary Clinton.

"I am afraid that even after the American people will elect those who promise to leave Iraq, the U.S. will not do so." - Hamas leader Abu Abdullah

Somewhere over the Rainbow, in the land of Oz, there is a liberal who will do whatever conservatives want. Our most inspired conservative desires, he will fullfill. Everything we saw in Reagan, he will be. No matter what he has done or said in the past. His name has been on the news, and besides no conservative can be elected in America. We've convinced ourselves of that. So he is our guy, because we believe he will do whatever conservatives want.

He will appoint judges who agree with us, while disagreeing with him.

He will be at the forefront of the fight against, because we want him to be. But if he isn't, well our convictions can be departmentalized.

He will support our right to own guns, unless we need to lose them to fight crime. Well, we have to make sacrifices.

He will defend marriage against those in the culture war trying to destroy it, while bringing us homosexual marriage by another name - civil unions, which make a mockery of marriage. But we will tell ourselves that is different.

He will stop the wicked stepmother Hillary Clinton because suddenly all the liberal democrats will want to vote for a liberal republican who might even cut some liberal programs, much to their delight? (Does any program get cut by anyone?)

He will be a great leader in the war on terror because we have convinced ourselves he can be. If we only believe.

He will do all these things because we want him to. I can support him. If only he only agrees to.....

He will be at the forefront of the fight against abortion, because we want him to be. But if he isn't, well our convictions can be departmentalized.

Not sure why that dropped out.

Although I am humbled to admit that I will use the "duh" in posting when being condescending and sarcastic.

Having said that, I watched the video of Rudy at CPAC and I'm at a loss at the tone of this post. I also watched Romney and of the two was more impressed with the candor, sincerity, pointedness, intellect of the Rudy speech.

It was, for me, what I wanted. A man who is both human and bold.

Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin

may be shared among many of the pro-choice Republicans, reluctance to take choice away because of those occasional, very terrible situations where nobody wants to say no to those individuals. It's not the same as approving all elective abortions. These people are worth keeping in the camp, because they'd probably all be happier with a long-term reduction in the root causes that create the need for choice to begin with. It may take a generation or more of action on all fronts to achieve great results but I think most everyone in the party wants to be constructive, to make abortion as rare as possible, and not just through legal means.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

If Giuliani were merely supportive of the rape/incest exceptions to banning abortion (you know, the occasional, very terrible situations where the anti-abortion movement is split) in addition to the life-of-the-mother exception, there wouldn't even BE a discussion about his abortion position.

This is all about Giuliani's support for Abortion On Demand as provided by Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton and the Supreme Court decisions since that have refined those two.

Run like Reagan!

We don't need Roe or the courts to provide exeptions for those terrible cases. Look at what happened in South Dakota last November, where the people voted to strike down the legislature's abortion ban because it did not provide exemptions for cases of rape and incest.

While its true that the unborn child is no less innocent in such cases, ardent pro-lifers need to understand and realize that most people (even those who are mostly pro-life themselves) do not think that a woman should have to carry to term a pregnancy over which she had no decision-making power at conception. Pro-life forces ignore this very widespread sentiment at their own peril.

But anyway, if Roe were overturned (as it should be), then in almost every state the people would ultimately ensure that the abortion remains legal for rape, incest, and life of the mother.

I'm also a pro choice although I'm a Libertarian who votes Republican however I fear that if Rudy Guiliani is not nominated that the next president will be a democrat named Hilary Clinton.

The true middle ground is getting rid of Roe. It would be completely neutral in terms of eventual abortion policy.

Being pro-choice does not mean one must be pro-Roe. You can be pro-choice and recognize that Roe is a terrible decision w/o any Constitutional justification; that its a perfect example of judicial activism. If not for that outrageous usurpation of power by the courts, abortion would not be any thing close to the national issue that it has become.

You can be pro-abortion and be opposed to the policy consequences of Roe, even. Few countries, by my understanding, have abortion as unrestricted as we do, thanks that activist court.

Run like Reagan!

Given the number of lefties attacking this community, the standards have gone up. Next time stay home and practice longer before taking your game to the big leagues.

Run like Reagan!

Why is abortion only an issue at election time?

It's not an issue only "at election time." Every time a Supreme Court vacancy occurs abortion once again becomes an issue that gets lots of coverage. It gets lot of additional coverage the closer we head to presidential elections, of course, because it is the president who chooses who gets to don the black robes.

http://jasperblog.wordpress.com/