Is that what they call Reaganites these days?
I'm old enough to remember when the Rockefeller-Gerald Ford Republicans said the GOP needed to nominate a social liberal in order to win. They said that Reagan wasn't viable because he was too conservative. For some reason I thought that such thinking had died, but I guess it was just hibernating
Don't you wish. Try not to wrap yourself in Reagan; he must be rolling over in his grave with what is going on on this web site with all these attacks on GOP candidates.
My argument is not that we need a social liberal to win. No one else is making that argument.
The more sober individuals here are noting that none of Republican heavyweights this election are social conservatives. That's life. As Rumsfeld put it, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you would like to have in the future.
The benefit of Giuliani is that he will not only give us 80% of what we want, but he will completely wipe out the Dems and give us Congress back. Run someone like Tancredo, we may actually lose more seats in 2008. A strong national ticket also has the effect of emboldening conservatives at the state and local level. While a weak candidate like Hunter means Republicans will be more timid and more compromising with the Democrats, given Hillary or Osama Obama will be stomping him by 20 pts and they'll be afraid of losing their seats.
Reagan didn't care who voted for him. He wasn't someone who slashed, bashed and burned his opponent. He didn't have to. He had class, style, and dignity. He could outwit his opponents with his quick wit.