Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Monday, June 11, 2007
David Vitter &  Theodore B. Olson :: Townhall.com Columnist
Rudy's Adoption Agenda and Proven Effectiveness
by David Vitter & Theodore B. Olson
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will Congress pass Obamacare by the end of the year?

We are conservatives who are proud to support Rudy Giuliani for president. We support Rudy because he is a strong leader -- a man of action and a man of his word. And a big part of that is his proven effectiveness -- his record of actually changing things for the better in concrete, measurable ways.

A perfect example of his leadership and proven effectiveness is Rudy's record on adoption.

Rudy Giuliani dramatically increased the number of adoptions in the New York City system as mayor. Adoptions skyrocketed 133% over his eight year tenure compared to the eight years before he took office. It was a clear priority of his administration, beginning with the establishment of the Administration for Children's Services, the first child protection agency in New York City history that reported directly to the mayor. He streamlined the adoption process, slashing red tape and promoting adoptions through innovative initiatives such as "Adoption Saturdays" where family courts held special sessions dedicated to matching children with loving homes.

We are badly in need of such leadership as a nation today. It shouldn't be easier to fly around the world to adopt a child in China than it is to adopt a child in your own hometown. Rudy is committed to this as a national priority. If he is able to match the increases he achieved as Mayor, as many as 125,000 additional children would be adopted. That's a more hopeful, family-oriented America.

Now this doesn't erase important differences with Rudy on abortion. And this doesn't remove that issue as one social conservatives deeply care about. But Rudy's adoption agenda is an effective, concrete method to promote positive values we share.

Rudy promoted a culture of personal responsibility as Mayor of New York. Under Rudy's watch, abortions decreased by 16.8% in New York City. That outpaced the nationwide decline by 30%. If Rudy achieves a similar reduction in the number of abortions as President -- a goal he has stated publicly -- it would amount to about 200,000 fewer abortions in the United States during his time in the White House.

We also have confidence in Rudy's commitment to appoint strict constructionist judges who will interpret the Constitution, not legislate from the bench. Rudy Giuliani spent most of his career in law enforcement. He was a leader in Ronald Reagan's Justice Department. As President, he will work to continue the Reagan Revolution by appointing judges like Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. We believe he would appoint the best judges of any of the major candidates and obviously, judges fundamentally different than those Hillary Clinton or any of the other Democrats would appoint as President.

The bottom line is that Rudy Giuliani can win the Republican nomination and then win the general election. (Which other Republican can put blue states like California, New York and New Jersey in play.) He shares our strong commitment to winning the war on terror, promoting bold conservative fiscal policy, and appointing strict constructionist judges. And he’s proven his effectiveness in promoting positive values we all share by achieving real results.

He'll do all of this as President. And that's sure worth working and voting for.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

David Vitter is a senator for the state of Louisiana and serves on the Committees on Commerce, Science and Transportation; Environment and Public Works; and Small Business and Entrepreneurship.

Theodore B. Olson is a partner in Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher's Washington, D.C. office and served as Solicitor General of the United States from 2001-2004.

Be the first to read David Vitter & Theodore Olson’s column.
Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.
Sign up today

Rudy & Sarah, A Great Combo
As someone who's been active in the conservative movement for more than 30 years -- and has written for Fortune, National Review, The American Spectator and many other conservative publications, I'm proud to endorse Rudy Giuliani for President of these United States. On my blog (click on name above), I endorsed Rudy's candidacy two weeks ago. I'd like to invite anyone who supports Rudy, or anyone who's considering doing so, to visit and share their thoughts.

Today, I've also enthusiastically endorsed Alaska Govenor Sarah Palin, strongly pro-life, pro-Second Amendment, and pro economic liberty, for consideration as vice-president. I can't stress how much vitality and strength she would bring to the ticket. She and Rudy would have the capacity to put red faces (and Republican victories) on many formerly Blue states.

All the best to Messrs. Vitter and Olson, with his late wife particular heroes of mine. God bless America.

steve maloney

No on Rudy
So rather than make certain adoptions are handled only by qualified people... he allowed adoptions and potential abuse for all?

Am I supposed to be impressed given that this is the guy who also promoted free condom distribution in New York?

Am I supposed to want to vote for this guy after he clearly twisted Ron Paul's words concerning the Iraq war to a statement on 9/11?

Am I supposed to want to vote for a guy whose abortion position continues to be incoherent? Saying it's morally wrong would generally indicate it's impermissible. *gasp!* Am I supposed to vote for a guy who not only supports the murder of babies, but wants federal funding for it?

Am I supposed to want to vote for a guy who wants to slap gun control provisions on me?

Am I supposed to want to vote for a guy who would redefine marriage so government no longer considers bringing up children in a loving family a social goal worthwhile of promoting?

Am I supposed to vote for a guy who when mayor of New York, continued a city policy of preventing city employees from contacting the Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS) department so that illegal immigrants could continue to violate our laws?

Am I supposed to vote for a guy so obnoxious and trite that he perpetrated the Virginia Trash affair?


...Am I supposed to vote for a guy with whom I have little to nothing in common with? Am I supposed to abandon all of my core principles, simply so I can get someone who's rational with the pocketbook? Sorry, but you can't buy my vote simply by giving me my taxes back. There are other candidates in the field who will do that, and to who I don't have to sell out my principles. To hell with Giuliani.

Rudy must
be desperate to bring out two largely inconsequential people to be his wingmen on the life issue. Steve is simply being desperate too. Read this straight Steve: We are not pro-choice on slavery and not pro-choice on abortion. No matter how you spin your incoherent make believe logic, like hundreds of thousands of the 'base' you so despise, I cannot support a candidate who is not man enough to say: yes I am pro-choice but the issue must be decided by the democratic political process in the state legislatures. Is Rudy gonna take that aproach or not? Yes or No? Cut the nonsense and level with us.

The Dems would do better?
To those conservatives who claim they will not vote for Rudy under any circumstances because of the abortion issue: do they think things would be better if a Democrat was elected in 2008? If their choice is between Giuliani and any Democrat, it is their intention to not vote or vote for some third party candidate and possibly let the Democrats win?

Do they feel that a Democratic president will appoint strict constructionist judges and justices to the lower courts and the Supreme Court? The next president will certainly get to at least one appointment to the Supreme Court (guessing that Stevens, who is nearly 90, will finally retire). They'd rather have a Democrat appoint that justice than have Giuliani make the appointment?

Do they feel that a Democrat will take the same steps to reduce the number of abortions and increase the number of adoptions that Giuliani will take?

Do they feel that a Democrat will take the same steps to ensure America's security that Giuliani will take? Do they feel that our nation's enemies will be more afraid of a Democrat, or more afraid of Giuliani?

Then let the Dems win
Sorry, but I'm not about to be getting into choosing the lesser of two gross evils. If given a choice between Stalin and Mao, for whatever bizarre reason I'd still abstain from voting. Bad rulers are bad rulers.

And as for America's enemies, I think they'll be more afraid of an American soldier than a politician of either side.

And on the Republican Party...
...and while we're at it, let me also say that I'm sick of having the leadership of the party which I belong to thumb their noses at me with demanding that we compromise on every issue. Abortion, illegal immigration, fiscal responsibility, the 2nd amendment, gay marriage, limited government... if not the entire party platform, our leadership has effectively decided to cave in on. If they don't stand for anything, why should anyone vote for them? Oh, and as for national security they don't exactly seem to be doing a bang-up job there either.

I should also mention that if Giuliani wins, not only will I not be voting for him, but I'm going to start seriously considering registering with the Constitution party. They may never win an election, but at least they stick to their principles.

Wow a very
proper and no-nonsense answer Patriot. Take a bow!

Considering...
I'm considering Rudy Giuliani for president. Without being mean or negative, tell me who has the country's attention, conservative values, and political (i.e. financial) support to get the nomination, win the election, and do the job?

What conservative values?
Ultra liberal judges that he appointed in NYC? His numerous betrayals of his family? His sanctuary city policy? His pro-infanticide stance? His gun grabbing appetitite? You kings kid have a different view of conservatism than is generally understood.

Just Some Thoughts
I would personally like to have Fred Thompson as our canidate with Duncan Hunter as his VP. I would also support Rudy if he is the party's choosen man. After all the voters of the GOP would select him. Rudy believes in federalism and he did what he did to govern in New York City, it will be different in America at large. He said states and cities have to make there own choices on what's right for them.

With all due respect, Stoic Patriot, letting the Democrats win is stupid and suicidal. Did you know our terrorist enemies actually support Democrats because they know they're weak on defense. Rudy may not be the best but he is not Hillary, he is no socialist. She or Obama or Edwards will ruin America and there will be nothing to salvage. The Constitution party will not save us either, it only divides us and strengthens the Socialist left.

I know many of you will disagree with me, that is absolutly your right and privlage. That is why we live in a free society (till the Democrats get done with it).

It is one thing to stand uo for and on your principles, it is another thing all together to hide behind them.

Abortion and marriage--both local?
KsReaganite asks: "yes I am pro-choice but the issue must be decided by the democratic political process in the state legislatures."

Would you ALSO agree to allowing the definition of marriage to also be left up to the state legislatures?

Why do we need a Federal Defense of Marriage Act to define marriage at the Federal level, but we don't need a Roe v. Wade ruling to handle abortion at the Federal level?

How about medicinal use of marijuana? Why do conservatives insist on the Federal Government making decisions about that?

One more: In Nevada outside of Las Vegas, brothels are legal. If more states decided to follow Nevada's example and legalize prostitution (subject to stringent health regulations), would you have a problem with that?

I've always considered myself a true conservative in that I believe in a small Federal Government that doesn't attempt to regulate private matters for moralistic grounds. I agree wholeheartedly that abortion should have been left up to the states. But I also think that whether to allow gay marriage and which recreational drugs to allow American citizens to use in the privacy of their own homes should also have been left up to the states. Or even whether they want to pay for sex.

Ron Paul doesn't know terrorism
Stoic Patriot writes: "Am I supposed to want to vote for this guy after he clearly twisted Ron Paul's words concerning the Iraq war to a statement on 9/11?"

Giuliani didn't have to interpret Ron Paul's words. The debate was televised; millions of people (myself included) heard what Ron Paul said; it's probably been uploaded to YouTube a hundred times already so anyone can watch it and draw their own conclusions.

And what Ron Paul said was dead wrong.

There was far LESS terrorism from Muslims back when the European empires were doing a lot more intervention in the Muslim world than the U.S. has ever done. (How many Muslim terrorists ever attacked London or Paris before 1945, despite the indifference and oppression of the European colonialists to much suffering in the Third World.)

There was not much terrorism from Muslims against America even after that--till the 1970's. Then terrorism soared when the Muslims started feeling their oats in two ways: OPEC and the Ayatollah Khomeini's takeover in Iran. Those twin events emboldened and enabled radical Islam.

And those are historical facts.

While the British and French Empires were powerful, they didn't have to turn London and Paris into armed camps, and have their police breaking up Muslim terrorist plots to slaughter Brits and Frenchmen on a regular basis. They never had a terrorist attack like 9-11 in their largest cities. Why? Because when they needed to teach the Third World a lesson, they did.

If the U.S. did to the Muslims what the British Empire did to the Zulus at Rorke's Drift, we could put this terrorist genie back in the bottle where it belongs. The only question is whether we have the will to do it.

After what I saw on 9-11, I certainly have the will.

Ron Paul does not.

considering Giuliani?
Giuliani is no conservative. Read these articles and then tell me this is a conservative.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55695

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55795

He has the backing of corporate interests because he is a globalist and will do their bidding. When Bill Clinton was president Giuliani said he agreed with most of his policies. To think that Giuliani will appoint strict constructionists is insane. The policies he supports are not constitutional. He is supposedly pro-life now, but he has said that social conservatives are a liability to the party.

Enjoy pulling your hair out over things like Bush's "immigration" bill? Don't expect anything different if Giuliani is president.

We killed the bill for now, but it will be back. If we raise the same amount of outrage and act out we could get a decent candidate. The minimum I expect is someone who will be committed to preserving our national sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the welfare of American citizens. Giuliani is not that man.

I don't buy that it is impossible. I am sick of pundits making excuses for unacceptable candidates who are willing to sell out our country and our citizens!

Yep I agree
Steve L. On all those points. Just to clarify the Fed Def of Marr. Amendment was NOT to impose a federal standard but just the opposite: to guarantee that each state could set its definition of marriage and not be overruled by some podunk federal judge. I am a true blue federalist. Not lets see all you Rudy supporting 'limited govt' folks say that in crystal clear terms. Yes or No?

It is not always about abortion.
The writer did not give the details but MY GUESS is that in New York under Giuliani homosexual couples not only were allowed to adopt but that the law required equal access to the children of what I presume to be largely religious people. Who is carrying children to term if they don't want them these days? It is either some one with a religious bent, or crack head who hasn't noticed they are pregnant and are completely irresponsible, or someone who is too dumb to notice they were pregnant.

Someone can give me the answer but it wasn't voluntarily given by the writer of this article.

You did notice a few years ago that the Catholic Adoption Services in Boston had to close down because they had a preference for married couples to have the first chance to adopt the most desirable orphans, the babies?








The States are not soverign...
...in all things.They are subject to the constitution as is the Federal government.For an easy example,the States cannot opt for slavery,or printing their own money,or making their own foriegn policy.And, in my opinion,they CANNOT violate the 14th amendment by taking someone's life without due process of law.Why else do you think the Supreme Court reviews all death penality cases?Roe vs Wade was decided on "privacy" issues,which doesn't appear anywhere in the Constitution,because a majority of the members of the court wanted abortion to be legal.We would not stand for the court deciding that a black person was not a "real" person and therefor the States can decide to execute him based on their own laws.

Mail bag!
Kings_kid & Drew: Alright, you're entitled to vote for Giuliani. As for my candidate currently from the Republican group, my nominee would be Fred Thompson, although I'm willing to accept any of the candidates but Giuliani, who is effectively the antithesis of the party platform. If I and other social conservatives decide to break from the party en masse, yeah the Dems will win. I'm willing to make compromises (even accept Ron Paul despite how much his drug-stance angers me, and his stance on the Iraq war being one for oil makes me think him a fool), but not to this degree. Even if we ignore the abortion issue, I invite you to look at what I posted previously. Giuliani still wouldn't have what it takes to get my vote. The Republican party can do better.

As for what Ron Paul said, here's a youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AD7dnFDdwu0 Not once did he mention 9/11 prior to Giuliani's statement. He mentioned the patrolling of the no-fly zones as an example of one of the reasons why the Middle East hates us, but more than anything he was arguing that they are motivated by interventionist policies adopted by the U.S. and that we should be more thoughtful about our policies. Giuliani twisted his words to make Paul's example sound like the sole reason behind 9/11. I found Giuliani to be dishonest by doing that.

Booboolane: Funny, last I checked I had no problem with conservationists. A close friend of mine is a homosexual (despite my opposing gay marriage), I happen to be an atheist, yeah I do hate people who decide to screw up their lives with alcohol and drug use and put other people at risk with their inebriation and "mind-expanding" experiences. Last I checked I haven't joined an animal slavery movement, and as for thinking for yourself that's all well and good, but more important is that you get it right. Medieval astronomers thought for themselves and believed that the planets have a circular orbit. They don't. They have an elliptical one. Oh, and as for not liking anyone who's not mindlessly anti-abort? That's not true. I happen to like thinking individuals who are anti-abortion.

For your consideration, I posted this elsewhere on Townhall before:

"I'm always amazed when anti-abortion activists are tagged members of the "extreme" and "religious" right. I happen to be an atheist myself, and I have no qualms about legislating my moral viewpoint. Why? Because I believe the set of my beliefs to be correct and replete with compulsory moral truths. In the case of abortion, a "fetus" exhibits brainwaves about 40 days into a pregnancy. It is at this point that the brain has exhibited something which can be scientifically verified - the establishment of an individual mind. The mind is what matters and is what has rights, because it is not one's arm that constitutes an individual, or one's pancreas, but that conglomeration of mental activity which gives rise to the self. If we pit this against the leftist vision of a woman's right to her own body, we must then pit the right to live against the right to not have "resources" drained from the mother. If we assume that all people are created equal and have equal individual rights, we must ask which right is the greater of the two. Since life is a prerequisite to any and all other rights (one must be alive to exercise control over one's own body), I assert that life is the more fundamental of the two rights and to practice otherwise is murder. Is this line of argumentation religious? Extreme? I think not.

Due to this sometimes I find myself almost laughing that abortion is even debated, let alone permitted. The rational debate in my mind rests on where the ban on abortion should first be incurred, ostensibly between conception to scientifically verifiable consciousness. We may wish to push an abortion ban back even further than scientifically verifiable consciousness for we may not have the ability to actually detect when it first emerges, and so it's wise to insert a "moral buffer." A government's first duty is to protect the lives of its innocent citizens, and not to allow some to play with the lives of others.

Ultimately I wouldn't mind if the left legislated their moral opinions into law if I happened to believe that they were correct moral truths. But given that I believe in a right to property which they constantly seek to redistribute, given that I believe that laws which are not inherently immoral have a moral duty to be followed (something the left dismisses quite often), I refuse to side with the left. The fact that they seek to legislate against what unnerves their consciences doesn't bother me, for truth is externally existent, not made up by the individual. As such "whose" truth it is is irrelevant. What matters is whether or not the proposition in question is true! We all make different contentions as to what truth is, moral or otherwise, and fight it out through debate, political dealing, and even force. If members of the left possess a conscience, good. But more important is that that conscience get things right."

So yes, I am passionately anti-abortion, but I'm also capable of generating a modicum of thought.

Making Adoptions Easier
First thing you have to do is get rid of this "open adoption" foolishness. Allowing the babymama to hang around after the adoption is like allowing your husband's ex-fiance to move in with you after the wedding. Immediate and permanent termination of parental rights is paramount. Because frankly a lot of my friend who have adopted overseas have done so because they have seen the cases of children being torn screaming from their adoptive homes to be "awarded" to strangers who tossed them out when they were babies but want them back now the hard work is done. That, and the relentless insistence on allowing adopted children to find their "real family" and insert themselves into it regardless of the feelings of the woman who gave them up.

Couple this with termination of parental rights much earlier in the life of the foster child so that child can have a permanent home before being shuffled to 17 different "families" -- and the establishment of childrens' homes where they can live until families can be found for them -- and you'd see a big increase in domestic adoptions.

Oh, and replace the entrenched social workers who refuse to allow Black children to be adopted by White families regardless of the law, or who tell single women that the only children they are eligible for are those with severe multiple handicaps 'that families don't want' or teenaged boys, again regardless of the law. There would be far fewer women getting pregnant with their own babies out of wedlock if it were possible for them to adopt. Trust me -- I tried ten different organizations and agencies before I gave up and grew my own. Mother Teresa's representative actually told me that it was better if children died in India as babies than that they be adopted by single White women. Those people need help.

Rudy and GOP
Conservatives would bolt GOP over Rudy

Can Rudy win the GOP nomination with leaders of the social conservative movement working against him? Can you be a pro-choice republican?

Politico-A growing number of influential social conservatives are speaking out against Rudy Giuliani, with some threatening that they will take flight from the Republican Party in 2008 if the former New York mayor is the GOP nominee.

Giuliani’s support for abortion rights and gay rights has not to date prevented him from winning the support of a sizable number of socially conservative voters, according to polls. But the continued strength of his candidacy is causing alarm among leaders of conservative advocacy groups, many of which have been major players in Republican politics.

“Speaking as a private citizen, no, no, I could not support (Giuliani),” said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, which has about a half-million members. “The 20 years I’ve been involved in politics, the life issue has been at the very top. How could I turn my back on that?”

Perkins said that should Giuliani win the nomination, he would vote for a third-party candidate who reflected his values. “It wouldn’t be the first time,” Perkins added in an interview last week.

Other prominent cultural conservatives to signal public opposition to Giuliani in recent weeks included James Dobson of Focus on the Family, Louis Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition, veteran activist and former presidential candidate Gary Bauer, and Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention.

READ MORE

http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/conservatives-would-bolt-gop-over-rudy


The Bill of Rights should come first...
Yippee for Rudy!

He supported adoption and maybe even enhanced and streamlined the adoption process... Whoopdy F'n doo!

What about the Bill of Rights? His stand on controlling lawfully owned firearms, legal gun sales, prohibiting constitutional concealed carry laws and other unreasonable harrassment of law abiding firearm owners should keep him from the Republican nomination.

In fact, any candidate for public office who has actively worked to diminish any part of the Bill of Rights should not be even considered for the President of the United States.

This of course leaves out McCain and Romney as I have discussed many times. Lawful and responsible firearm ownership and public carry which is free from governmental harrassment and infringement is part of the Bill of Rights.

It seems however that the only candidates who fully support the entire Bill of Rights are not receiving any MSM attention.

It's very unfortunate that in today's America, with so much information available, that without constant attention from the MSM, you don't have an ice cube's chance in hades in making it through the primaries.

Let's get on the ball here and start writing, speaking, editorializing, e-mailing and faxing support for the few candidates who will fully support and defend the United States Constitution and get away from secondary issues such as adoption.

I respected Ted Olson and Senator Vitter a lot more BEFORE this article.

Marc
http://www.SaveTheGuns.com


Read the Constitution
Abotion and gay marriage are NOT issues for the President. Roe V Wade should be overturned because it was ruled wrong. They should be in the hands of local government. The reason Giuliani is not electable by anyone who loves America, freedom, and the constition is because he is anti-constitution. He stood side by side with Bill Clinton trying to ban guns. He supports the UN world-wide gun ban. He is pro-amnesty as long as we issue a "tamper-proof" ID card. For those dumb enough to believe that there is no technology that creates a tamper proof ID card.

The 10th Amendment states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people". This means, federal welfare, federal health care, federal abortion laws, etc., etc. are unconstitutional and are issues for your LOCAL governement. Vote for people who actually believe in your country, unless you don't believe in this country then pack up and leave for a country that was founded on ideals you like. I hear Venezuala would be nice for all you democrats out there. They have already passed the fairness doctine (state controlled media) you covet.

once again
Rudy = babykiller

As I Have Said
I support Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter. I really would prefer that Rudy is not the canidate. But when faced with voting for him or allowing Hillary or Obama to have the White House, your right that is my lesser of two evils. And make no mistake Hillary is a large evil.

I follow my principles too, I dislike both abortion and gay marriage. I am a proud gun owner and the second amendment is important to me. With Rudy, should the base of the party choose him, we have a chance. With Hillary we have none at all.

So point in case, we must do what we can to get Fred the nomination, however if Rudy is the people of this party's choice, the I will vote for him much as I may not want to. My principle won't let me sit and watch Hillary get elected.

There are better
Republican candidates than Giuliani. That should be enough for anyone.

With regard to the Second Amendment...
let's not forget that all these wonderful illegal aliens will soon be able to have guns legally, and we had darn sure better hang onto ours, NOT revoke the Second Amendment, which will come next. Why do I say that?

I feel certain that is part of the plan. When the hoardes who hate us have legal residence here, they will have the right to own guns. The gun-control mobs will start hammering on us to relinquish our right to bear arms in order to keep guns out of the hands of people who are still foreign to the principles of a Republic. As it is now in states and cities with gun bans, so will it be then: those who have guns will be the police and the lawless, and the ordinary citizens will be known as "victims."

Bartley
You make some good points in the article and you are accurate with Roe V Wade standing the federal government has the right to regulate elective abortions. However, Roe V Wade was wrongly ruled and shoudl be overturned based on the 10th amendment and it is a state issue. Now when it does get overturned the states will then be free to regulate it however they wish, as they could before. Most people forget abortion was legal in over 20 states before Roe V Wade came into effect.

Some states, NY, Cali, and Mass come to mind, will have abortion on demand. Other states like Oklahoma and Montana I'd expect to have much stricter laws. This is what the founding fathers intended. A weak federal government with most taxes, all social programs, education, etc being handled on a local level which allows people of liked ideas to group together and live their way. Not for the federal government to make it so everyone is forced with no choices.

I supported Romneys health care plan for Mass., however, I oppose it federally. That is the nature of how this country was set up. Just because people in Mass want something doesn't mean people in Texas want the same thing. This was never ment to be a nation where everyone had the same laws and was forced to live the same. It was ment to offer choices. The land of the free and the home of the brave is fast becoming the land of the slave and the home of the sheep.

I find it so discouraging when I try to have an inteligent political conversation with anyone, on either side, and then go to ask if they have watched the debates so far and the responce is "what debates?". It's sad that so many people ignore the process until election day then vote for the popular name. If uninformed people would abstain from voting this nation would be much better off.

Too bad the religious are monomaniacal.
It is too bad that the religious it appears can only deal with one issue: fetuses.

WAKE UP. There are issues about babies and adoption going on and the purple glove is winning. There is a grab going on and gay couples are adopting the children, of religious folk, and the religious folk are so concerned with abortion, abortion, abortion, that they aren't even noticing. The people carrrying babies to term are religious- otherwise why do it? The gays with their political agenda have stuffed it down the politicians' throats that this is a civil rights issue and that they have to have equal access to babies for adoption. Why are the religious not fighting that their babies are ending up in these households instead of orphanages giving first preference to a married couple consisting of a man and a woman? Religious orphanages are being closed down if they don't go for the "equal access to babies routine. What happened to freedom of religion?

I don't see anything in Giuliani's 12 issues that includes supporting the traditional family. Romney made the statement that gay families are fine but that the ideal remains a man married to a woman and a child.






Still asking
I'm not looking for reasons to dislike someone. I am looking for a candidate I can support. These are the qualifications that I feel are requirements to be my selection for the next President. Who has

1 the country's attention
2 conservative values
3 political (i.e. financial) support to get the nomination
4 political (i.e. financial) support to win the election
5 ability to do the job (of President)

Here are the names you all have mentioned. Which of these have all of the above? (KsReaganite, that's a QUESTION, not an endorsement. If you have different criteria for selecting your candidate, that's fine, but don't be--well, mean and negative--to those of us who haven't liked what we see yet.)

Sarah Palin
Fred Thompson
Duncan Hunter
Ron Paul
John McCain
Mitt Romney
any of the candidates
better Republican candidates than Giuliani. (These last two were VERY helpful!)

None of them meet the 5 points above. The silence on this makes me think there isn't anyone. That is sad.

Do any of you know of someone who could at least grow into meeting 4 of the 5? Convince me.

Kings kid
you are looking for a rationale and you are unsure of yourself. You had your answer earlier but didn't like it. My criteria is the same as yours but I definite conservatism differently than you do.

booboolane
was it the fall on your head that gave you your "boo boo?"
God creates life. From the moment of conception. Yep. It's a baby alright.

Kings Kid
Duncan Hunter is good. Check out his website.

PAtooey on Rudy
GOP can't handle that they have been proven to be LIBS by their actions over the last 8 years. Voting for big Government, big new agencies, and STILL haven't given free guns to pilots!
Rudy is a gun control nut left wing liberal liar who wants HILLARY to be president to take the pressure off the GOP. Why else would the GOP put a yankee liberal like him up? If you want central planners in Washington running your life from cradle to grave then fine. If not, vote for RON PAUL! RON PAUL! RON PAUL!

Kings KID...
"there isn't anyone" Well of course there isn't. Republicans NEED to lose this election. Its part of the plan. Our two parties are both big government lib parties. The elections are like a WWF match they figure out ahead of time. We take office for a while, and everyone cuts down Republicans, then we give it to them, and everyone cuts down Democrats... Its a big game. End the Game. VOTE FOR RON PAUL! VOTE the constitution back! vote for the Constitution before it is completely gone! don't play the major parties "trade back and forth" and do whatever we want game.

Anna
Thank you, I will!

Jdieter
The only rationale given here for Ron Paul is that he isn’t Rudy Giuliani. I don’t know about the rest of you, but that doesn’t exactly convince me. Too bad for Ron Paul; he may be just the man, but his supporters on this site can’t say why he’s a good choice! He may have the country's attention, and he may have conservative values (although that’s not been proven), but so does Mel Gibson. Does he meet #5? Can he do the job of a President?

KsReaganite
This is my last comment to you. Quit trying to pick a fight with me. I have no idea why you think you can read my mind. You don’t know what I consider a "conservative", because I never told you! And how do you know I had my answer? Not from what I said.

Why do you say I'm unsure of myself? I'm not running for office. I'm very confident in myself, but that doesn't mean I know who I'm voting for in this election.

However, I'm completely sure of you--I asked for a response without negativity, and all you had to give is criticism. Can't believe you're from Kansas. The people there are generally very nice.

No on Ron Paul
Ron Paul believes in isolationism and that we can't strike back until we've been hit. Newsflash. If a dirty bomb goes off in the US Iran will deny any connection. Who are you supposed to strike back on when there is no army, no uniform and no flag? The answer is we wouldn't strike back. Hey, just hit us. Premptive strike is the thing to do with a country making nuclear weapons who say they will use them. Ron Paul is against preemptive strike. I'm not saying you blast a city of millions of people. I'm not saying you use nuclear weapons. I am saying you try and take out the loony tunes who is the head of the government. And if they replace him with another loony tunes you take him out. And you take out the top engineers and the silos and the missiles. Saddam used to balance Iran, and Iran used to balance Saddam. We took out Saddam, thus creating a monster out of Iran. This would restore balance to the Middle East not destabilize it. We destabilized it when we took out Saddam, and if we will if we let Al Quaeda take over Iraq and the oil fields, or if we let Iran take over Iraq's oil fields.
The name of loony tunes is Ahmadinejad. Some people call him "I'm a mad dinnerjacket" to attempt to remember the name. Or you can call him "I'm mad in a jihad".

The reason Bush is losing the faith of the people is that he sent the army in to act like California highway patrol instead of taking out the bad guys, he is trying soldiers for murder, he's sending border patrol guys to jail, and he seems to think he is the father of Iraq, Albania, Mexico, and Africa. Somehow the US got left out of the picture except to pay the bills.




booboolane
Bad logic. A baby born at 26 weeks would probably get some stares at a mall, too. Have you ever seen a 10-ounce baby in a carriage?

you people sigh
Ok.
As a mathematician once said
zero to 1 is not 1.
greater than zero is not zero.
It is on its way to 1.

It is human life.
It is not a baby.
If I am kneading dough and it drops on the floor I say I dropped the dough on the floor.
I don't say I dropped a loaf of bread on the floor.
The dough has to go into the oven and be baked before it will be referred to as a loaf of bread.

In creation, the dough has to be in the oven for something close to 9 months, perhaps 7 months.









hmmm
It may not be "a" human life but methinks it is human life. It is alive and don't know what else I would call it.

Maybe we need Bill Clinton to help with the semantics.


butterfly
You know that a butterfly's life consists of being an egg, a caterpillar, a chrysallis, and then a butterfly. As a chrysllis the caterpillar dissolves into a soup and then reoroganizes its genes into a butterfly. Now regarding what is going on, at the chrysallis stage you wouldn't call it a caterpillar and you wouldn't call it a butterfly, however it is butterfly life, as long as it alive and not being used to make silk.

Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.