Anyone who sits this election out because of Rudy’s stance on abortion is just being silly.

I have no opinion on that issue. I can’t vote for Rudy based on his stances on gun control and illegal immigration.

Let me start by saying I’m pro life, so don’t fling any moral poo in my direction.

Anyone who sits this election out because of Rudy’s stance on abortion is just being silly. What have any past Presidents done to get rid of abortion? It seems to me that we’ve had almost 8 years of a pro life President now, without much success on that front.

BadgerHawk on October 8, 2007 at 10:52 AM

For one thing President Bush vetoed funding on stem cell research.
President Rudy would sign it. After all he is pro abortion.

Face it – Hillary gets in then we will have 16 years of Hillary and then Obama.

Lets not go crazy!

Blame the Christians. It’s easier than looking at his real failures in policy.

ThackerAgency on October 8, 2007 at 9:34 AM

Yeah I mean look how badly his policies screwed up New York. Ya know, those tax cuts, removal of the deficit, cleaning up the city, cutting crime…and don’t even get me started on his policies while the 3rd highest official in Reagan’s Justice Department…

It seems to me that we’ve had almost 8 years of a pro life President now, without much success on that front.

BadgerHawk on October 8, 2007 at 10:52 AM

If you want to add the four years his dad was in office, it’s been 12 out of the last 20.

Like beating someone whom half the country flat refuses to vote for is going to be hard.

bj1126 on October 8, 2007 at 10:03 AM

Bush was re-elected with just 50% of the vote. In 2000 he was elected with less of the popular vote than Al Gore received.

In 1996 Clinton was reelected with just 49.2% of the vote, and received just 43% of the vote in 1992.

We got Roberts and Alito, but these things take time.

Yeah and Ronnie Regan gave us O’Connor and Kennedy, Ford gave us Stevens and Doofus Bush gave us Souter.

It seems to me that we’ve had almost 8 years of a pro life President now, without much success on that front.

BadgerHawk on October 8, 2007 at 10:52 AM

We got Roberts and Alito, but these things take time.

Hear hear. There’s nothing wrong with an adversarial setting, if you know what you’re facing you can use it to your advantage. Show em you got a pair already.

FWIW, I don’t see the FoxNews debate ducking by the Dems as quite the same thing, although it is funny to me that they would have gotten some good questions and who needs that? This was more an attempt to de-legitimize Fox as a news org.

Anyone who sits this election out because of Rudy’s stance on abortion is just being silly. What have any past Presidents done to get rid of abortion? It seems to me that we’ve had almost 8 years of a pro life President now, without much success on that front.

Excellent point badgerhawk.

Anyone who sits this election out because of Rudy’s stance on abortion is just being silly. What have any past Presidents done to get rid of abortion? It seems to me that we’ve had almost 8 years of a pro life President now, without much success on that front.

Don’t laugh. Her husband won with 42.8% in 1992.

JammieWearingFool on October 8, 2007 at 10:13 AM

Yep, and he went on to be re-elected. If Hillary wins she’s in for 8 years, so we better be prepared to fight tooth and nail to win this election.

Like beating someone whom half the country flat refuses to vote for is going to be hard.

bj1126 on October 8, 2007 at 10:03 AM

It IS going to be hard–really hard! Maybe even impossible. Get your head out of the sand, bj!!!! We’re in one of the toughest and most important political fights in years, and we’re losing. Catch a clue.

Like beating someone whom half the country flat refuses to vote for is going to be hard.

bj1126 on October 8, 2007 at 10:03 AM

If there were even the slightest chance you were right, I’d be sleeping a lot easier right now. But Hillary is so IN they should just cancel the election.

I’m kidding, of course; we still need our best candidate, but it ain’t gonna be close.

LOL these are funny threads. I’m waiting for someone to start spouting off how Rudy is the only one that can beat Hillary. Like beating someone whom half the country flat refuses to vote for is going to be hard.

bj1126 on October 8, 2007 at 10:03 AM

Don’t laugh. Her husband won with 42.8% in 1992.

JammieWearingFool on October 8, 2007 at 9:55 AM

Infidel!

I’m waiting for someone to start spouting off how Rudy is the only one that can beat Hillary.

I’m waiting to see supporters of Thompson, Romney, Huckabee, et al. explain why despite the national polls show them getting spanked by Hillary AND Obama, the GOP should jump off the cliff with them. Or better yet, which blue states they put into play.

It is always the electoral picture and Hillary is not in bad shape electorally. Focus on NM, CO, IA, and Ohio and she beats the GOP candidate. Taking NM, CO and IA gives her the win if all other states stay the same. Take Ohio and the GOP can cancel Christmas.

ThackerAgency on October 8, 2007 at 9:49 AM

No, ThackerAgency you are mistaken. The Rudy supporters are saying that if nominated the party should support him. Unlike the Christian Coalition that says they will stay home.
Very big difference.

he’ll ramble on about strict constructionist judges, etc.

Rudy doesn’t ramble. He speaks clearly and eloquently.

ThackerAgency on October 8, 2007 at 9:34 AM

Blame the Christians. It’s easier than looking at his real failures in policy.

Failures in policy? Yeah, he really, really sucked as Mayor of New York. /Sarc.

But let me put the ball in your court:

What is it you expect him to do exactly?