Quote Originally Posted by Xiahou
Your comments were wrong on both issues- as has been pointed out.
Actually, they weren't.

On abortion, the situation you face now is that it's the law of the land. Giuliani can certainly (from the pro-life perspective) not make the situation any worse. And even if you elected Pat Robertson President, and he made banning abortion his key political platform, he would still not be able to have any impact in the current political environment. So as I said, it really is a non-issue.

Yes, I understand that the President appoints SC Justices, but I would submit that this also is non-issue. If you look at past Supreme Courts held a majority of Republican appointees, they still ruled on the other side of issues that are near and dear to Republican hearts when the chips were down, so electing a social conservative is no guarantee you'll get what you want. Besides which, in a Democrat controlled Congress your chances of having social conservatives appointed to SCOTUS are nil to start with.

But I think CR's comments sum up a key problem with American politics: you guys seem to confuse voting for a President with voting for a Supreme Court.

As to guns, after social security they tend to be the fourth rail of American politics. I don't think it would be an issue that Giuliani would really want to stick his nose too far into. Yes, he was anti gun in NYC, but let's face it: this situation was a little different there than it was in the U.S. in general. Guns were a virtual pandemic.

Quote Originally Posted by Xiahou
Guliani seems to have a good track record on the fiscal side, but he'd have to do some persuasive talking before I could get on board with his social ideas.
Well, you and CR have pretty much answered my opening question:

Guns, gays, and abortion apparently are more important than good government and sound fiscal policy to some voters.