Still waiting for Putin to start ruling be decree… It appears he is following the law for now in his managed democracy.

From my perspective, there is no way to judge individuals fairly except merit because its the only factor based on reason. All other factors contain some element of emotional preference, which makes them far less objective.

Essentially, if I could choose how the world worked, I would put it on the merit system. If you do not meet the requirements or someone is better than you at something, you do not have merit in this regard.

Merit = Skills, abilities, performance, etc…

I am obsessed with merit because my family has built its existence not on handouts, but merit. My father works hard like my grandfathers. He may work long hours and dislikes his job sometimes, but he provides for his family a standard of living better than any of those provided by my ancestors.

I earned a full tuition scholarship to Hillsdale not because of a legacy or because of being a minority, but because I worked hard during my 13 years of previous education and took my academics seriously. I might have had less fun than the average kid, but I earned a full tuition scholarship plus had a good foundation for my college education.

Now I am preparing to enter law school and I should not have much difficulty because of my hard work during my undergraduate years (3.6 GPA) and high LSAT score (163 – Top 12 percent).

My life is not built on a foundation of handouts, but merit. This is the guiding principle I live by and what I judge others by.

Giuliani argues that the best way to reduce tension about social issues is to allow states, rather than the federal government, to take the lead in responding to them. That would allow socially conservative and liberal states to each set rules that reflect the prevailing values inside their borders. Rather than perpetual combat in Washington, he insists, the nation could reach a new equilibrium as different states gravitated to different solutions.

In an interview last week, Giuliani said the key to resolving cultural arguments “where our society on a national level ends up being very divided” is to apply the “principle of federalism.” Questions on topics such as gun control, gay rights or aspects of abortion, he continued, “are issues that I think the founding fathers would say should be consigned to state and local governments, experimenting, deciding, having different views, and the federal government having a more limited role.”

Maybe Giuliani might be end this “culture war” nonsense that has paralyzed our politics for four decades?

Federalism serves Giuliani’s political interests because it allows him to reconcile his generally moderate social views with his socially conservative party. But he’s also right that federalism can serve society’s interests by allowing “a lot of room for difference” in a diverse country.

Federalism isn’t a panacea. On regulatory issues such as global warming, both environmentalists (who want concerted national action) and business (which prefers consistent rules) often find it unsatisfactory. Nor is either side in the culture war likely to abandon its effort to impose its vision on the entire society.

But over time, federalism might drain some of the fervor from that fight by allowing both cultural conservatives and cosmopolitans to control the rules in their communities on these difficult issues — at the price of allowing the other side to do the same.

Personally I think federalism is the only way to end the culture war on the federal and state levels. If New York wants gun control and gay marriage, let them. If South Dakota wants restrictions on abortion and no gay marriage, let them.

Will a Giuliani nomination and victory lead to more pro-choice Republicans appearing all of a sudden? Probably for two reasons: First, those who have pandered to the pro-life cause because the belief its essential to victory will be liberated from that mentality. Instead they will be honest about their beliefs and advocate the position they support.

Second, more people who are more or less in favor of the Republican economic agenda, but against the social agenda, will start supporting Republicans more vocally. I know a lot of younger people fall into this category. We might be socially moderate (my case) or socially liberal (one of my closest friend’s case), but we agree with the Republican economic agenda because it appeals to our upper income or future upper income lifestyle more than the Democratic nanny state model.

A Giuliani victory would reconfigure the political balance in this nation from a cultural divide to a more economic divide as his staunch free market policies will appeal to the upper and middle classes.

I agree with Gerson to a point. The analysis of Giuliani being a cultural warrior like Nixon is excellent. Nixon’s disdain for social degenerates and coupled with his social moderatism helped him win twice. If Giuliani continues his record of going after social degenerates, this will work well in the general because it will play well in areas like Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, California, etc… He might lose votes in the south for not being pro-life, but he will gain far more votes in the northeast for being their kind of culture warrior.

Rudy Giuliani has a good chance of winning in areas that have been losing Republican voters for years because he mixes elements that appeal to the middle and upper class in suburban and urban areas by being fiscally conservative, but a socially moderate culture warrior going after social degenerates.

The problem with Gerson’s analysis is how Giuliani might be a very practical politician, but he is definitely to the right of Nixon on fiscal issues. Based on his record in NYC, he might be the most free market candidate that has a serious shot in a long time.

PA - Giuliani leads with 42%, followed by Thompson at 16%, McCain at 10% and Romney 6%.

MI – Giuliani leads with 20%, followed by Romney at 15%, McCain at 14% and Thompson at 14%.

The broadcast of the Live Earth concert in the USA got horrible ratings.

This does not mean Americans do not care about global warming. They just do not like to have a bunch of uneducated celebrities think.

The issue of climate change is important, but its not the most important issue to most people.

On one side, there are people like myself who are open to innovation and believe things can be better. We are willing to adapt and realize “America” and the world will always change. We want our children to receive an education not just in our culture and its norms, but to have a good understanding of others. We are generally well educated and more nuanced when compared to the other “America.”

The other side is driven by a fear of change. They believe nothing beneficial can be learned from other societies. They fear anything that might be foreign. They oppose innovation because they might have to adapt. They are generally less educated and fear progress will hurt them.

Isn’t this the fundamental division today in American society?