Redstate

With all his law and order background, you'd think the guy would be strong on immigration. Instead, he's a strong proponent of of amnesty and guest worker programs like Dubya proposed. Finding that out was the straw that broke the camel's back in me deciding whether or not to support him.

Really, I don't care about the gay marriage thing all that much to be quite honest. On gun control is important, but it's not my first tier of priorities in choosing a candidate. Abortion, though, is top tier, along with taxes, homeland security, and immigration. Giuliani wins on two out of the four. And on abortion, he's far enough left that it pretty much cancels out everything else, even if he does somehow vow to appoint originalist judges.

--------
Sometimes the hardest thing and the right thing are the same. -The Fray, "All At Once"

I should note that I'd rather pull the lever for Rudy than Johnny any day of the week. Even with his personal scandals and abortion problems.

--------
Sometimes the hardest thing and the right thing are the same. -The Fray, "All At Once"

The same way McCain, Bush, and every politician right of Kucinich is against amnesty. He will support an earned legalization. He will support a comprehensive immigration reform including a guest worker program and a crack down on employers. Tancredo will be the only person to oppose doing anything productive on immigration and he will do about as well as Al Sharpton will in the D primary.

Social Security Choice - Club For Growth

he will be in favor of amnesty.

You fool nobody with that kind of talk Adam. The only people opposed to doing something "productive" on immigration are your faction.

Rudy has a track record on immigration, and it's hideous. He fought all the way to the Supreme Court to keep NY a "sanctuary city" where city employees were forbidden to cooperate with the INS. When he lost he refused to accept the results.

But if that's how you define amnesty, then the country, the congress, the President, and all viable 2008 candidates support amnesty. Enjoy tilting at windmills.

The rest of us will be working on actually changing immigration policy so it makes sense.

Social Security Choice - Club For Growth

the country, the congress, the President, and all viable 2008 candidates support amnesty

It won't make it any more true. Care to list all the people running in the recent elections who trumpeted their support for amnesty? Or in any elections for that matter. Bush did not exactly highlight the issue in 2004.

"if that's how you define amnesty, then the country, the congress, the President, and all viable 2008 candidates support amnesty. Enjoy tilting at windmills."

I don't define amnesty that way and neither do all of those parties. But you seem to. That's fine but it's also why those crafting an immigration policy right now are ignoring you.

Social Security Choice - Club For Growth

Absolving people for breaking the law. It's not that difficult to define, for those who appreciate that words have meaning.

those crafting an immigration policy right now

You are referring to your friends in the Democratic party, I assume. The Republican party has rejected your positions in no uncertain fashion.

BTW, you were making noises the other day about actually putting up a post trying to make the case for how amnesty for scores of millions of illegals would be a benefit to the country and the party. Such a post will the be the first such I've seen at Red State, if you pull it off. I'm looking forward to reading it. Nothing would make me happier than to be convinced that this course is something other than suicide for the GOP and conservatism.

I love how you lecture Adam for bending a word beyond its possible meanings, when you're the one who's apparently incapable of consulting a dictionary.

Amnesty:

–noun
1. a general pardon for offenses, esp. political offenses, against a government, often granted before any trial or conviction.
2. Law. an act of forgiveness for past offenses, esp. to a class of persons as a whole.
3. a forgetting or overlooking of any past offense.
–verb (used with object)
4. to grant amnesty to; pardon.

Now, I've not seen a proposal on the table that does not involve a fine of at least $2,000, so it would seem that it is actually you who's using a word in a manner beyond its possible meanings. The fact that you are recapitulating a ubiquitous mistake in so doing doesn't make it any less wrong.

"We could find a speck of dust and scribble down our life stories..." - The Refreshments

Then I suggest that you have a look at the Mike Pence plan. This has an amnesty and no fine of any sort. I've pointed it out here repeatedly.

It's never a good idea to guess that I don't know the meanings of words.

Where is a link to the full text of this plan?

"We could find a speck of dust and scribble down our life stories..." - The Refreshments

The detailed summary from Pence's website, and in order to even apply to be in the program, you have to return to your country of origin and apply. What exactly is the problem, here?

"We could find a speck of dust and scribble down our life stories..." - The Refreshments

how returning to your country is "punishment"?

The idea that a $2000 fine is punishment is weak enough, given that many "poor immigrants" pay up to $12,000 to get smuggled in here. But taking a bus ride across the border?

Why not just announce that they have to say three decades of the Rosary and we'll call it even. It makes as much sense as this business of stepping across the border for a moment.

What a terrible, terrible penalty for breaking into the country and committing a wide range of felonies in all likelihood. Incidentally, the failed Senate bill (which may be filibustered this time)had explicit amnesty for document fraud and other felonies, including tax evasion, if I recall correctly.

All this is moot. There apparently are enough Republican and Blue Dog opponents in the House to kill it there again without reliance on an easily bought Senate to do the heavy lifting of enforcment first.

Whether the penalty is adequate, the point is whether it's fair to call it "amnesty." I might think that drunk drivers ought to get 10 years in prison for their first offense, but I don't call a 30 day suspension of their license "amnesty."

"We could find a speck of dust and scribble down our life stories..." - The Refreshments

of illegal entry is a form of amnesty, that is debatable. What isn't is what the Senate attempted and failed to do: to tack on what would have been blatant amnesty for document fraud, forgery, and tax evasion.

Incidentally, I don't think U.S. citizenship should even cost $2k. It should be free, and given to those who come here legally and show respect for our laws and process.

And only to them.

If the penalty for drunk driving was 10 years in prison, and somebody proposed passing a law saying that all drunk drivers who had driven drunk between dates X and Y would only be punished by a 30 day suspension of their license, then amnesty starts looking like a reasonable description of whats going on.

In any case those who insist that there is no amnesty always focus on the illegal aliens. The biggest beneficiaries of amnesty would be the illegal employers who suddenly have their lawbreaking wiped off the books.

And that is only if its ever enforced. Whats going on is clear. We can all see through the "comprehensive" rhetoric of Bush and Co..

To be fair, let me say how I define amnesty. Amnesty is "a general pardon for offenses." Thus, any earned legalization program that is not a general pardon is not an amnesty to me (or the others we have been mentioning). Thus if one must report themselves and pay a fine, that is not amnesty. It may be a good or bad idea, but it is not amnesty. People do not like amnesty in the traditional sense applied to illegal immigrants. Polls show significant support for forms of earned legalizaition (sometimes requiring returning to the home countries, sometimes a fine, etc).

I continue to believe that supporting individuals who are willing to uproot their families to succeed through hard work should be a conservative thing to do. It is the antithesis of the welfare queen mentality and America is better the more hard workers we have. We should do what we can to attract hardworking immigrants and deter those who would live on welfare. From my experience and research, the vast majority of immigrants fall into the hardworking category and we are the better for that. By finding a way to legalize illegal immigrants and providing an orderly system for future legal immigration, we can focus on integration efforts and security threats rather than worrying about a man who works his butt off to make $3/hr under the table and send half of that home to support his extended family. And legalization would help take away the incentive to hire under minimum wage workers.

I'm open to all kinds of restrictions or debates on how earned legalization should occur. But it is either that or deportation and I do not support deportation.

Social Security Choice - Club For Growth

I agree that immigrants make this country stronger economically. I even support enhancing our immigration laws to allow more LEGAL immigrants in the country (with proper security screening, of course). I will even add that much of the hysteria against legal and illegal immigration is just thinly disguised racism. I agree with everything you write except about finding a way to legalize illegal immigrants.

Illegal immigrants, by definition, broke the law and should not be rewarded with a "path to citizenship" or whatever. You do not reward the violation of a sovereign nation's laws, especially by those who are not citizens of that nation.

Period!

"I even support enhancing our immigration laws to allow more LEGAL immigrants in the country (with proper security screening, of course). I will even add that much of the hysteria against legal and illegal immigration is just thinly disguised racism. I agree with everything you write except about finding a way to legalize illegal immigrants."

Ideologically, I care much more about allowing more future immigrants a legal way to work in the country. I prefer higher levels of legal immigration, but guest worker programs would be a good step. My support for earned legalization is more pragmatic than ideological. I don't see an alternative besides deportation which is impracticle. If a bill set up a system that would work in the future and did nothing about those already here, I could live with that. I care more about fixing the system so we don't make the problem worse.

Social Security Choice - Club For Growth

But where we disagree, we definitely disagree. Or more specifically, I think you set up a lot of false choices.

For example, I too support a guest worker program. But I simply do not believe illegals should be eligible to participate in it.

And why is deportation impractical?

If someone comes here illegally, we should either incarcerate them or deport them. Or both. Again, they broke the law.

Were we may even agree about fixing the system. However, I think the basic draw for most illegals is the availability of cheap labor paying either sub-minimum wages or at least, sub-union wages. But as soon as you make illegals "legal," they can and will demand better wages. Not wages that the market will support -- indeed, those are the wages that illegals are working for now -- but wages that they would become politically entitled to as they were no longer part of the "underground economy" and such.

Indeed, the interesting thing I find about the economic argument that liberals use in support of "amnesty" for illegals (and I know you don't like the term but please allow me to use it in this context) is that they are actually making an argument against minimum and prevailing wage laws.

I do not think you personally are a liberal but rather a libertarian but I will say that as long as we have our current wage laws, we will have an illegal immigration problem. In that regard, "amnesty" will only make the problem worse.

Unfortunately, I do not see us changing our current wage laws. Or at least, not for the better while Democrats are in control of Congress.

All you ever do is tell us how not supporting amnesty will cause the GOP to lose in droves, and how everyone supports amnesty. Why don't you explain to us why amnesty is vital to our well being as a country. What does the fact that McCain and Bush support amnesty have to do with the question of whether or not we should pass amnesty?
Just Say No To Amnesty: http://www.fairus.org

Here's one of my first posts at RS back in mid-2004.

Social Security Choice - Club For Growth

that you wrote that, but I think I've seen you say that you are not in favor of open borders.

I understand the arguments being made in that post, but setting aside the point that I find them very unpersuasive and impractical, nobody has ever attempted to sell such an idea to the American people. If your idea is so obviously good then I don't see why it needs to hide it's face. Let Bush and Martinez attempt to sell this notion to the public instead of pretending to be trying to figure out a way to prevent it. Let's see some politicians run for office on this platform and see how far they go.

Bush and Martinez don't agree with me doesn't mean I trash them and call them insulting names. That's why people with my views on immigration are still in the conversation even if we aren't going to get our ideal. I have been unabashed about supporting increasing legal immigration as a solution to the illegal immigration problem. I think 1% of the country's population would be an acceptable ceiling. Most years we would not come near that. Most actual researched efforts show about 300-400,000 illegal immigrants coming over the border each year. We allow around 1,000,000 legal immigrants a year. Together that makes about .5% of the population coming in to the country each year, far less than my ceiling. This would allow us to concentrate on finding security threats and background checks on legal immigrants as well as giving those who wish to immigrate a reasonable assurance that they can come legally.

If illegal immigration is the problem, this is one of many possible solutions. I understand that many people are also concerned about legal immigration and those are the people who I differ with the most.

Social Security Choice - Club For Growth

1% cap is quite reasonable. Throughout much of the 19th century a much higher pecentage of America's population was foreign born.

I repeat, if you think that "The wall between nation-states continues to be one of the largest impediments to full economic freedom in the world" you should run that idea by the American people and see how far you get. Apart from being flat out wrong (no economist agrees with you), it's political suicide.

Bush and Martinez do agree with you. Although they are constrained by politics into acting otherwise for the most part.

I think 1% of the country's population would be an acceptable ceiling.

And by what calculations do you arrive at that conclusion? Why not 0% or 20%?

The ability to assimilate and past rates of immigration is how I come up with 1% as a ceiling.

And "no economist agrees with you" is incorrect. The vast majority of economist (including those who write at The Economist) agree with me. Allow the free movement of capital and goods has made everyone better off. Freeing kabor would do the same. The difference is that labor involves people often from different cultures. Thus it does make sense to make sure assimilation is happening. And it is just as fast if not faster than in past generations.

I have my view and understand it will not be implemented right now. I am willing to compromise and try to find plans that are effectively pro-immigrant and anti-illegal immigration.

Now run by the deport 12 million people plan by the "American people" and see how it does. It's not popular. Americans are compassionate, not vindictive, people. And unless there is an actual security threat or criminal record, most Americans are willing to support earned legalization depending on what the terms are.

I suspect a Comprehensive Immigration Reform will pass the Senate with 70+ votes and the House with 300+ votes and the President will sign it. Only those who want deportation or other hardline measures will be upset by the reform.

Social Security Choice - Club For Growth

Enough with the "everything is amnesty," "all I blog about is 'amnesty,'" and the "if your to the left of Tancredo on immigration your a RINO" crowds. I can read enough of that BS on FR. Viva the darn Bush plan.

Spitballs?!?! / Yo No Soy Marinero, Soy Capitan

Only a Giuliani nomination could cause me to explore the Constitution party candidate.

Adam's Blog
The Adam Graham Program

Being honest, I am perplexed at how ANYONE who calls themselves a conservative could even consider voting for him. He is to the Left of most Democrats in Congress. He earned a reputation as a "law and order" candidate but what is he most famous for: persecuting -- sorry, I mean prosecuting -- Michael Milken, whose only "crime" was making him and his clients money.

Conservatives want to support him because he was the mayor of New York on September 11, 2001, but bluntly, what did he really do?

Honestly, nothing special at all.

On the issues important to me, from abortion and same-sex marriages to taxes and immigration, Guiliani is just plain wrong. Guiliani is the one Republican candidate that I would not simply not for for, I would work against him!

If you lack principle, you can support Giuliani because he can "win" whatever winning means when your core values are opposed by your president.

Adam's Blog
The Adam Graham Program

Conservatives I've met who support Rudy are simply unaware of his positions on major issues. Junkies like those of us at redstate operate and decide based on large amounts of information that typical voters are not in possession of, for whatever specific reason there may be.

I just attended a Giuliani speech yesterday as part of a work seminar. Colin Powell as well. They have a very simple appeal to conservative voters. They speak in generalities, they don't address a lot of hot button issues, they are unabashedly patriotic, and they don't equivocate with regard to the United States as leader of the free world, the world economy, and the fight for freedom in this world.

Considering that those same conservative voters are bombarded with the diametrically opposite position from the left, is it any wonder Powell and Giuliani continue to enjoy conservative support?

In a primary, the issues will come out. That support will die down. But it's a mistake to assume moral weakness on the part of his supporters. Those I know, and I know many, simply haven't any notion of his position on core issues.
absentee

It was a non-issue in '06. The only role Iraq played in the election was to drag down Republicans who supported it.
Just Say No To Amnesty: http://www.fairus.org

We are ONLY talking about the fall of Western Civilization!! We are only talking about the fate of our nation! We are only talking about extremists who want to rule the entire world...BELIEVE OR DIE!!!

HELLO! McFLY!!! ANYBODY HOME!!!

See The World In HinzSight!
Political HinzSight

Maybe you'd like to tell me where in that comment I said it shouldn't be an issue. It should. Problem is it won't be. If it was, the Dems wouldn't have won this year. Maybe you don't like the observation, but its the truth. Hello! McFly! Do you actually read comments before you respond to them?!
Just Say No To Amnesty: http://www.fairus.org

I'm venting at the entire Gxxxamned voing world!!

See The World In HinzSight!
Political HinzSight

.. if the voters say it is. I think they are packing it in. Barring another major attack on the US in the next two years I don't think it will be the major issue on peoples minds come 2008.

This kind of chicken-littleism brings the whole enterprise is disrepute. Terrorists are not a threat to us at the level you posit. You exaggerate many times beyond their proper scope. They are, certainly, dangerous and must be dealt with (as must certain nasty governments overseas) and sometimes that will involve military action. But they are no more likley to bring about the fall of Western civilization than ebola fever is likley to kill the entire human species.
Terrorism is for the Righ twhat global Warming is fro the Left: an end-of-the-world hysteria on which rationality is unwelcome.
Things are much more manageable when you keep them in perspective.

Otherwise, the country just might rally around America's mayor.

The strong executive may be key in 08. 2008 will be the first post 9/11 Republican presidential primary. I think that means something, particularly the old assumptions on social issues may not hold as much weight for the Commander in Chief position.

Congress no longer does anything on guns, a gay marriage amendment goes straight from Congress to the states and abortion is in the courts so the question is where does Rudy stand on judges? If he believes in Constitutional judges where these social issues he's on the wrong side of get settled in the legislature than he may be fine. If he wants to be an activist or take any agency at all as the executive on these issues then he's done.

ex-DEM from Miami

Totally agree. This is a war for survival, and we need a leader. Rudy can be that person.

Excuse me but what has Guiliani actually done in the war on terrorism. NOTHING!!!!!!

That has got to be one of the most ignorant insults I have ever seen. Rudy was on the ground leading in the rubble of 9/11. He lead New York City out of the ashes of 9/11, the literal ashes.

I think what WT probably meant is that Giuliani doesn't have any experience in prosecuting the War on Terror. He doesn't have any foreign policy experience at all. While he may have done a fine job leading NYC back from the attacks of 9/11, he wasn't responsible for any strategy to pursue our enemies.

Yes, I'm a Democrat. No, I don't hate Republicans.

...and as big of a pro-Israel hawk as you'll find...

One of our biggest missed opportunities, IMHO, was not striking Iran & Syria when we had an opportunity during the Israel-Hezbollah war. If Rudy had been President, I think this opportunity would not have been missed...

Spitballs?!?! / Yo No Soy Marinero, Soy Capitan

Ronald Reagan or even George W Bush having any foreign policy experience.

Excuse me but what strategy did Guiliani implement?

What policies did he devise?

Indeed, what expertise did he bring to the War on Terrorism?

As for his leading New York City as mayor, I give Guiliani credit for keeping his cool and presenting a calm front to the world after the September 11th attacks (he did look much better than Bush those first couple of days) but still, can you lease give me an example of something CONCRETE he did "on the ground leading in the rubble of 9/11. He lead New York City out of the ashes of 9/11, the literal ashes"?

Don't give me shibboleths, give me concrete, factual examples?

Yes, I do think Guiliani did much better than many politicians did but when you cut right down to it, he still did not do much. The fact is, Americans were looking for a hero in the days immediately after September 11 and Guiliani, by simply not looking bad (read: GWB), fit the bill. But again, after all he said and done, he didn't do all that much.

And if you disagree, please provide concrete examples to the contrary.

No one cares about his opinion on "gays," but many care about his opinion on marriage. Otherwise your comment is pretty spot on.

Social Security Choice - Club For Growth

You don't think his support for civil unions will hurt him in Iowa and South Carolina?

I just can't see Rudy winning in South Carolina. Therefore, I don't see him getting the nomination.

Adam's point was lost. The point was that Rudy's position on civil unions will have an impact, as opposed to some comment about support for gays that clearly implied a backward bigotry among conservatives.

absentee

and I believe they are, (Scalia would have been his CJ nomination & he loves Roberts and Alito) abortion will be off the table. I think 2nd Amendment issues will be as well.

If he is "right" on judges, his personal opinions won't matter.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

As long as he takes a Federalist approach on the issues and supports judges in the mold of Scalia, his personal opinion of abortion won't matter. I'd have to say I'm a pretty conservative guy, and I strongly support Giuliani. I know his personal history and the baggage he carries, but it doesn't matter to me as long as it doesn't negatively affect his ability to do the job.

He has fiscal discipline, illustrated by his handling of the out of control budget that was given to him and his ability to bring back the NYC economy without raising taxes. He is tough on crime, and he posseses leadership qualities and an ability to communicate that have, regrettably, been lacking within the current administration.

I'm not yet sure who my #2 choice is, but I know who is at the top: Rudy Giuliani.

Giuliani was a feverent supporter of the "sanctuary city" idea, in which several cities in the US announced that they would not comply with Federal law and cooperate with INS agents. He fought the law all the way to the Supreme Court and lost. Then he thumbed his nose at the law and still refused to comply with it.

I'm not impressed with his supposed law-and-order credentials. Once more people find out about him (hopefully not in the Presidential election) I think they'll pass.

I just looked up the idea you were referring to and I found quite a bit. I hadn't heard that before, and I'm not sure why Rudy advocated such a practice. I now know it began under Ed Koch and extends even to today under Bloomberg. All I know is what I heard Rudy saying on O'Reilly not too long ago - that it was imperative to secure the boarders as soon as possible. I don't know if he was just pandering, or if he believes both positions are valid. I'll have to wait and see what he says next and see if it squares with what he has said and done in the past.

What evidence do you have that he'll take a "federalist" position on judges? Because he said he likes Roberts and Alito? What potential Republican nominee wouldn't say that?

Everyone I've ever talked to who is "pro-choice" doesn't care if abortion is made legal by democratic means or judicial fiat as long as its legal. I really think that if Rudy tried to claim that he favored abortion rights but would appoint judges that opposed them that he'd be raked over the coals by the media. Look what happened to John Kerry that he tried to explain that he'd voted to give the president the authority to go to war, not that he voted to go to war. It was true of course, but you can't make those kind of nuances in a 30 second sound bite or even a presidential debate. Maybe that's stupid, but it's true. Anyway, I seriously doubt that Rudy ever even thought about "federalism" until he decided to run for president.

The only evidence that can be offered is only the evidence we currently have. I can only go by what Rudy has said. What evidence do you have that he would OPPOSE judges like Scalia?

He might be acceptable as a senator from a liberal state where all he could do is approve or disapprove a judge. As a president who picks judges I don't want somebody who is pro-choice, pro civil-union, pro-gun control, etc.

Rudy said that people weren't going to be concerned about issues like abortion and gay marriage in 2008 because there would be more important issues to worry about. That's not the man I want picking judges. Or the man I want in the oval office when congress passes bills on embyonic stem cell research, etc.

The real issue is who gets to decide social issues, the legislature or the courts? If Rudy is on the right side of that, he will be fine.

These "conservative" Democrats are trying to have it both ways today by campaigning as pro-gun and pro-life, but then supporting the party line on judges. In 2008 Republicans need to frame social issues as "who gets to decide, the People's representatives or judges"? That's something Rudy can lead while exposing these Democrats who campaign as "conservatives" safe in the knowledge the Left believes their judges will provide them cover.

terrorism Rudy has taken and dno't really know much else about him.

There is a lot about him that appeals to me, but there are a lot of negatives that make him pretty much somebody I wouldn't consider in a primary, and I suspect he could do well in some areas-the North East, the West and in the Great Lakes states, but I don't see him appealing widely in the South once the other primary candidates start going negative on him.

I could vote for him in a general, because he would be a heck of a lot closer than almost anyone the dems are running to my positions, so in that sense he is acceptable, but I am not convinced in his candidacy-plus given his position on abortion I would have to have a heck of a lot of trust in him to keep any promises about judges-although this is one area I think he may actually be good on.

When's the last time a president really had that much influence over abortion or marriage issues. The president does have a huge amount of influence over securing the border though. And what, McCain would be better because he claims to be pro-life, and against gay marriage. He voted against a federal amendment banning gay marriage, and said he doesn't think Roe v. Wade should be overturned. So given a choice between the two, I'll at least take the one who wouldn't support amnesty.
Just Say No To Amnesty: http://www.fairus.org

We need a candidate that is a proven leader and has a great deal of moral authority with a majority of the country as a war time leader. Otherwise, the MSM will rip them to shreds before the general election. I can sacrifice a few conservative issues, particularly those that aren't strategic and the President has very little direct influence over to avoid that scene. Much to my chagrin in many ways, McCain and Giuliani are the only two currently on the scene that make the cut, but I'm still hoping Romney can get there.

National Security, taxes, spending, immigration and Federalist judges are the conservative issues I care most about in 2008. If Rudy can deliver on those I'm not going to throw him under the bus because he's not ideologically pure. If we demand that standard, we'll get an intellectual with no proven executive experience much less moral authority with the public. Such a candidate will be destroyed by the MSM.

Pro-life to the point of being obnoxous. I'm also pro-Rudy.

He will be good on juducial nominations, so I'm not concerned about his so-called leftist opinions on abortion or gay-rights. With respect to his personal life issues, find me someone who doesn't have them (McCain does, big time). At least Rudy's have been public knowledge for years.

_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

Why is it that almost everybody who is pro-choice see the courts as protecting natural rights while people who are pro-life assume that since the constitution says absolutely nothing about abortion it should be left up to the states? One's views on abortion and marriage do influence one's judicial philosophy. I can't think of any prominent pro-choice politician who has publically disavowed Roe. Maybe some Ivory tower law professors do, but it's not a stand politicians make and if Rudy does it will simply be out of political expediency.

I think that's a really defeatist attitude to say that Rudy's personal morality shouldn't matter because all of our candidates are immoral. And I seriously doubt that it's true. I haven't heard anything bad about Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee, or Mark Sanford. I think that the president should represent the moral values of the country, at least to some extent.

If Rudi is a liberal, why would he appoint conservative judges? I hear this all the time. It's illogical.

Conservative judges are not about being on one side or the other of social issues. It refers to their judicial philosophy. There's a link somewhere on this site to a good discussion from last year about the difference, but I can't find it. I think a search on "conservative judicial philosophy" would probably pull it up though.

absentee

I used to be a big Condi fan, but she hasn't been too impressive since she moved over to State. I don't know what it is about Foggy Bottom, but I think Atilla the Hun could be appointed Secretary of State and in six months he'd be indistinguishable from Neville Chamberlain. I understand having to be diplomatic, but sheesh!

Romney worries me. I keep hearing conflicting information on whether or not he's just conservative for show. As for your cabinet selections - oh yeah. Very nice!

That's the ticket!

I'd be fine w/ Rudy and McCain splitting the RINO vote and Romney winning. But can't say I see Condi as being the best VP candidate. How about somebody who wasn't the national security advicor during 9/11 and secretary of state during Iraq?

Chuck Hegel would be an ideal pick for Romney's VP. Military and foreign policy experience that Romney lacks. Attractive to moderates, but 100% pro-life rating, and an "A" from the NRA.

he would be a great VP because he is pretty tenacious and I think he doesn't give in too easily when he thinks he is in the right.

I just think he has a bit too much ego for second fiddle.

I am not sold on Romney either. At this point my favorite candidate is Newt-mostly because he knows the basic principals of the party and knows how to articulate them, but I am not convinced he would go anywhere as a candidate-and he would be a huge lightening rod and easy target for the left, but he might be an interesting number two on the ticket.

"Giuliani is a law and order conservative, and I expect him to lean toward strong enforcement of immigration laws."

See my comment upthread, "Tough on crime".

Or read this.

Former mayor Rudolph Giuliani sued all the way up to the Supreme Court to defend the city’s sanctuary policy against a 1996 federal law decreeing that cities could not prohibit their employees from cooperating with the INS. Oh yeah? said Giuliani; just watch me. The INS, he claimed, with what turned out to be grotesque irony, only aims to “terrorize people.” Though he lost in court, he remained defiant to the end. On September 5, 2001, his handpicked charter-revision committee ruled that New York could still require that its employees keep immigration information confidential to preserve trust between immigrants and government. Six days later, several visa-overstayers participated in the most devastating attack on the city and the country in history.

You can't put someone in as VP you wouldn't put in as President. The VP has two jobs: break Senate ties and cover for the President. Being no good for the top slot means he's not right for the second slot either.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

Thats a recipe for disaster. You might as well give the presidency to hillary clinton right now. Running a "moderate" and a liberal for the republican nomination for president? You might as well elect the democrat liberal, the real deal.

Also many have mentioned condi rice as a possibility. She has sold Israel down the river and is in many ways as liberal as Guiliani. You don't want that.

Let's clarify even more: according to a transcript or video tape (I can't remember which) of an interview I read or heard with Wolf Blitzer on CNN, Mitt Romney said he was not against research on existing embryonic stem-cell lines (this is W's position, too) or against research using "leftover" embroyos from invitro-fertilization clinics. The second part of his position surprised me; however, Romney added that he was absolutely opposed to embryo production or cloning for research. The legislature in Massachusetts wanted to permit embroyo cloning for research, I believe, and Romney vetoed the bill that would have established this.

:o)

Care to back up that claim?
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

can't you just offer some earned path to citizenship for the greater good of both America and the GOP?

How is this course of action in the best interests of America, the Republican party, or conservatism?

(Why can nobody ever answer this simple and fundamental question?)

You refuse to acknowledge any of the arguments provided, so people just don't bother to try to explain it to you anymore.

There's just no incentive for anyone to try.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

you never made any argument. And you seem intent on keeping that record intact.

1. Go home
2. Apply to enter
3. Wait patiently instead of hopping the border like a hoodlum
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

Actually GHW Bush signed the PBA ban.

Plus, this isn't about banning abortion anyway. This is about letting the states determine abortion policy instead of having the Supreme Court do it.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

He could do himself a big favor by coming out as pro-choice, anti-Roe. He could articulate a "moderate" position on abortion as supporting a federalist solution that would allow America to put the national abortion debate behind us. If he sounded off as committed to overturning Roe, it would be a big step in reassuring people. Just saying "I like Scalia" does not mean he will put his neck on the line for constructionist judges.

Social Security Choice - Club For Growth

Rudy could do the country a big favor by announcing that he won't run.