This is blatant subliminal manipulation

/paranoid leftie

I think it’s an absence of any behavior that would suggest that he wants liberal activist justices nominated.

csdeven on December 27, 2007 at 1:17 PM

As I understand it, both Romney and Rudy were relatively non-ideological in their previous records of appointing judges, due to both practical aspects of the selection process, as well as their own priorities in governance. Rudy had always indicated that he was in favor of judges who were tough on criminals, while Romney has had a record of seeking a greater amount of “diversity” on the bench. Neither candidate can point to a rock-solid record of appointing good constitutionally-oriented judges, so we have to go on what they’re promising. I can’t see how Rudy is less believable than Mitt.

and are willing to give others, like Romney, a pass.

Big S on December 27, 2007 at 1:10 PM

I’m in that group. I give Mitt a pass on it and I can’t point to a specific comment from him that addresses it. I think it’s an absence of any behavior that would suggest that he wants liberal activist justices nominated.

This ad is what I like about Rudy. I also think he will nominate Roberts type justices. I don’t know how hard he will push for them to be confirmed.

csdeven on December 27, 2007 at 12:58 PM

He’s tried to give conservatives a ‘heads up’ on judicial appointments with his “justice advisory committe”. He can’t come out and tell people who he would nominate, since that wold risk destroying their careers via mudslinging during a year long election fight, were he to get the nomination. He’s done the next best thing and appointed them to his “advisory committee”. You can count on some “Cheneyesque” advice in choosing judicial nominees from this bunch. It’s surprising how few conservatives trust him on it, and are willing to give others, like Romney, a pass.

Fred is blathering on Fox right now. Well, true to form, he is being vague and obfuscatory. She asked him how to walk the line with Pakistan. His response? “Just walk it”. Oh REALLY Fred? We all know we have to walk that fine line, the reporters question was HOW DO WE WALK IT!! What do we do? Fred don’t know what to do. He’s too scared to make a commitment to a course of action. Typical Fred.

Huck 20%, Guiliani 18%, McCain 15%, Mitt 13% and Fred 11% with Ron Paul at 5%

Geraghty and Jonathan Martin also think the Bhutto effect should be negligible.

Negligible in Iowa and NH were there are no real targets for al-Qaeda. But most of the other states, even states in the South West have prime al-Qaeda targets.

It’s basically his version of McCain’s “never surrender” ad. That’s the main thrust of it.

Works for me.

Rudy on Fox…
Stabilize Pak ASAP, worry about Democracy long term

tommylotto on December 27, 2007 at 11:47 AM

That’s consistent with the philosophy he outlined in his Foreign Affairs article.

So instead we should elect a person alleged by a Clinton supporter to have given 3 hours of jurisdictional advice to a law firm that represented terrorists?

tommylotto on December 27, 2007 at 11:39 AM

Edited for clarity.

Dr. Gecko on December 27, 2007 at 11:22 AM

Ha what? What video did you watch? Mitt’s impromptu response demonstrated great leadership ability and that he is completely up to speed on the suject. He offered much insight and was ahead of the curve.

AZCON on December 27, 2007 at 11:24 AM

So instead we should elect a member of the terrorists’ defense team?

How he talks

then, won’t play well in a national campaign.

Has Rudy done anything to stop terrorism other than clean up after them? I don’t see how glorifying first responders or telling the jihadis off will do anything to even slow them down.

AZCON on December 27, 2007 at 11:24 AM

Yes, he’s done a lot. In fact, he stopped an attack in the planning stages on the Holland Tunnel. Not the one from last year, but before 2001. They caught the guys videotaping the tunnel. I need to find an article to cite on it.