This is what I’ve been saying; there are too many people on the Republican ticket who ARE NOT, in fact, Republicans. They don’t stand for what we stand for; they don’t adhere to the party platform, etc., etc.
From Jay at Stop the AC…

Whether you like his strange idiosyncratic views or not, Ron Paul represents what the Republican party of our fathers used to be like. When the other candidates suggested that they would go to war without a Congressional declaration, he went bonkers. And when Mitt Romney waffled (what else is new?) and said he would have to ask the lawyers whether as president he could wage war, Ron Paul reminded him that he did not need to ask lawyers, but only to look at the U.S. Constitution. When Mitt decided to take on Rudy on the latter’s opposition to the line item veto used by President Clinton, Rudy reminded him that the problem was the courts have been clear that the line item veto is unconstitutional. Haplessly Mitt concluded that he had used the line item veto as governor of Massachusetts. Can it be that the commonwealth of Massachusetts has a state constitution that allows its executive a line item veto? The U.S. Constitution is taking a beating from guys who are supposed to be strict constructionists. Where is Justice Scalia when we need him?

The GOP candidates are stepping all over each other to show how they will all use force in Iran to get their way. There seems to be no recognition that such actions would imperil our forces in nearby Iraq, a possibility with which Pentagon planners have lately been concerned. A retaliatory attack would not hit the White House or Cheney’s residence, but brave men and women wearing our colors on the Iran borders. Again, only Ron Paul seemed to call for restraint. Tom Tancredo and Doug Hunter just love the idea of using force wherever America faces difficulties. Tommy insists that all our problems are due to illegal immigrants, including probably our parking problems; Doug, on the other hand, doesn’t even want to let Dubai invest in a portion of the stock markets.

Giuliani has decided that he will get the nomination by running against Hillary, so he takes slaps at her and her proposals. He has criticized universal health care as socialized medicine (“Hillarycare”), but yet no one asks him why if he so opposes government paid medical care, did he use it when he was fighting prostrate cancer several years ago. I guess it is bad for the children, but ok for the major of New York City. Those kids have got to get tougher, walk it off, children.

And of course I was pleased to see Fred Thompson finally arrive like Godot. He looks a bit tired, but he is a nice guy with no real instinct for the jugular. Mitt had some corny lines comparing the debates to the Law and Order series. It was so obviously contrived, that it got few laughs. Fred’s model is Ronald Reagan, but he isn’t the Gipper. He lacks Reagan’s charm and good looks even in old age. The Gipper was kind of bored by the job also, but Thompson shows that feeling too easily. At least in the beginning, one has to seem excited about being the leader of the free world. George Bush II was, and look how well that worked out for us.

http://www.politicsnj.com/watching-republican-debate-12880

It comes down to whether we believe they have genuinely changed

lol, thanks Jay. I need that one.

I for one tend to look at what Rudy has said and done since that terrible day… not what he said or did so many years in the past.

I don’t see how that could honestly affect his views on things that don’t relate directly to terrorism.

If you really think he is an honest man, you have some more reading to do.
http://www.factcheck.org/cop-counting_cop-out.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Rudy_Giuliani

AubreyJ………