As one who took no such vow, I've nonetheless adhered to it. However, let me just say that, like a few others, my interest has been piqued (finally!) by a certain individual who is not officially running...yet.

{Call me old-fashioned, but any references to political assassination in this thread willbe deleted.}

see that bandwagon with fred thompson at the helm? i'm on it.

Did the disappointment of Chuck Hagel not announcing today take the wind out of everyone's sails on this topic?

to a degree yes, andrew, i was a little disappointed to see hagel not commit. However, not so much because i thought he would be a strong contender for president (i don't think he would fare well against obama or hillary) but because i think he would make a terrific vice presidential pick and could add a great face and voice to the presidential debate.

Don't know if anyone saw Drudge, but today he posted a video of then Mayor Giuliani calling for taxpayer funded abortion...

...and an article mentioning that McCain has now skipped out on the CPAC conference, the Heritage Foundation retreat, the National Review Insitute's conservative summit and the CFG meeting.

It also had a CBS/NY Times Poll showing that 57% of Republican wanted more choices in candidates and only 40% were satifisfied with their current candidates running for the GOP nomination.

A candidate like Fred Thompson could really shake things up if he ran.

"Don't know if anyone saw Drudge, but today he posted a video of then Mayor Giuliani calling for taxpayer funded abortion..."

Ouch. I wonder if he stands by that position today? I wonder if he could credibly change his position even if he wanted to?

Video and analysis of Giuliani's remarks at http://2008central.net

This will likely anger some folks. Ultimately, Giuliani will argue that those remarks are consistent with his personal opposition to abortion, but desire to upload the law.

I could happily get behind Fred.

I have viewed the current contenders and think Duncan Hunter would make the best candidate. At least he doesn't equivocate on important issues.

It's one thing to be pro-life.

It's another thing to say you're personally pro-life, but wouldn't overturn Roe vs. Wade (cop out, other people may be killing babies but I don't have the moral right to say they shouldn't).

It's yet another thing to say you're pro-choice (I don't have a problem with killing babies).

It's even yet another thing to support taxpayer funded abortions (Killing babies is so important that I want to spend tax dollars to do it).

Giuliani falls into the last category.

It's one thing to be pro-life.

It's another thing to say you're personally pro-life, but wouldn't overturn Roe vs. Wade (cop out, other people may be killing babies but I don't have the moral right to say they shouldn't).

It's yet another thing to say you're pro-choice (I don't have a problem with killing babies).

It's even yet another thing to support taxpayer funded abortions (Killing babies is so important that I want to spend tax dollars to do it).

Giuliani falls into the last category.

...and what category does Mitt fall into? Depends on whether he's courting blue state Democrats or the national Republican base.

I'd say Giuliani has been the most consistent. Anyway, abortion is an issue(like gay marriage) that the media and some hacks love to throw into the mix to shift the debate. Take Anthony for example, he supported Linc "partial birth abortion" Chafee, but now he's using Giuliani's choice position to discredit him among conservatives.

Today, what the vast majority of Americans care about in choosing a President is the economy and national security. Whether their candidate agrees with their choice/life position is a "nice to have", but hardly the deciding factor.

I'm pro-life and pro-Rudy!

Perry,
I supported Linc because he was the key to ensuring a Republican majority which results in getting non-activist judges appointed to the Supreme Court. I would oppose Giuliani for the same reason.

There are very few sweeping moral issues that span the centuries. During the 18 and 19th centuries it was slavery. During the 16th century it was determining whether or not Indians were really "human". In Roman times, it was the treatment of slaves and Christians. For our age, it is abortion.

Five hundred years from now, no one will remember whether the tax rate was 28% or 33% on the middle class. No one will remember the capital gains tax rate or whether GDP grew during the eight years of a presidency.

But they will remember the great moral issues. And there will come a time when people will look at abortion the same way we look at slavery and the treatment of Indians as sub-human, wondering how a civilized society could act the way it did.

Perry,
One other thing, once again you're wrong on the consistency issue (how can one person be so wrong about so many things at once?).

Romney has been more consistent than Giuliani.

Romney went from saying he was personally opposed to abortion but wouldn't overturn Roe to saying he is pro-life.

Giuliani went from sayihg he was pro-life (before he entered his first mayoral) to saying he was personally opposed to abortion but wouldn't overturn Roe) to actively calling for taxpayer subsidies for abortion and the reaffirmation of Roe. Now he is back to the "personally opposed" position.

That's not to say that Romney has been consistent, but by comparison...

And now we find out that Hugo Chavez pays Giuliani's firm to lobby.

I would not be jumping onto any existing candidate's bandwagon at this point.