[Draco]

I dont think I'd vote for hilary but her planting questions has little to do with it. It's more of a tonight show joke than anything else.

Actually that is maybe the main reason I would consider voting for hilary. Think of all the jokes we'd get, bill becoming the first lady and all.

[maxiep]

Originally Posted by dudleysghost

You have to remember though that Rudy established those positions on social issues while running for mayor of New York City, and has been hurriedly backtracking on them while running in the national Republican primaries. If such dramatic shifts in position aren't the mark of someone who is willing to say whatever he thinks the audience at the moment wants to hear, then that's quite a coincidence.

If you want mainstream candidates who are mostly willing to say what they really think, look to Obama or McCain. Unfortunately, Americans seem to prefer the blando statements and stage-managed sentiments of people like Hillary, Rudy and Romney, so that's the kind of president we'll likely end up with.

Duds, I disagree with your characterization of Giuliani. I definitely think it applies to Romney, but while Giuliani has definitely softened his language, he's not changing his positions wholesale. He's still pro choice and still pro civil unions. Stating that he would appoint strict constructionists to judicial positions is not inconsistent with those stances.

[Talkhard]

Originally Posted by barfo

That's a perfect description of Hillary, huh?

pervert, trans. v. To cause to turn from what is considered morally right; corrupt.

[Ed O]

Originally Posted by Talkhard

pervert, trans. v. To cause to turn from what is considered morally right; corrupt.

Where did "pervert" come from?

You should have stuck with applying "pervious" to Hillary and said that she's someone who's too wishy-washy.

Ed O.

[Talkhard]

Originally Posted by Ed O

Where did "pervert" come from?

Arkansas.

[R-Star]

Originally Posted by Talkhard

Arkansas.

Weak. If the best debates you can come up with is spelling mistakes from other posters, I feel bad for you.

[dudleysghost]

Originally Posted by maxiep

Duds, I disagree with your characterization of Giuliani. I definitely think it applies to Romney, but while Giuliani has definitely softened his language, he's not changing his positions wholesale. He's still pro choice and still pro civil unions. Stating that he would appoint strict constructionists to judicial positions is not inconsistent with those stances.

Originally you had characterized him as "giving the middle finger" to his parties core constituency. Yeah, he hasn't changed explicitly from being pro-choice or pro-civil unions, but he also hasn't been bragging about it. His discussion on the matter has been limited to basically explaining how he is still a conservative Republican despite having taken those positions. That's hardly standing up to the base, it's just simple damage control. If he really wanted to stand up to them, he would be talking about why the party platform should change, rather than asking them to forgive him for deviating from it.

And while it is possible to be pro-choice and pro-civil unions and also value strict constructionism, that isn't usually what people talk about when they describe the latter. Strict construction could be said to mean a literal interpretation of the Constitution. In the minds of the Republicans that Giuliani is giving speeches to though, it simply means appointing judges who won't uphold Roe v Wade and don't see homosexuality as being part of equal protection. It is just about abortion and gays. Do you think when Giuliani talks about strict constructionism that he is in favor of limiting the priviledge of the executive to ignore the constitution, or limiting federal power in areas not enumerated in the Constitution? I doubt it.

Giuliani is a guy who loudly joined the chorus of criticizing Democrats for not condemning the Moveon.org ad in the NYT, as if criticizing a general was some kind of traitorous act. Is criticizing the war's management not acceptable in America anymore? He's the one who trashed Hillary and Obama as weak for merely saying they would be willing to negotiate with Iran. He also really did flip flop on gun control. From what I've seen, he hasn't stood up to the Republican base on any issue, but he's pandered to them on many.