It is a fact though, not a threat, that millions of staunch conservatives will not vote for a liberal leader. In my post 161, I laid out a short list of items that are not "social conservative" positions, but simply conservative positions, that Rudy does not ascribe to.
Should the party promote a candidate because the MSM considers him to be the best, or should the party promote the guy who most closely reflects its platform and Reaganism?
This is a battle for the soul of the party
The 'threat' is the behavior, the manner in which many of the anti-Rudy folks are making their case. The bullying and intimidation is in the rhetoric: the 'Rudy is a gun-grabbing, gay-loving, child-killing, etc' talk.
You must recognized the near-hysterical pitch to much of the debate. The pro-Rudy folks just like Rudy. The anti-Rudy folks are name-calling, insulting, etc. (I just don't agree he's a 'Liberal', that seems like name-calling to me).
I, personally, don't think GW is much of a 'conservative' -- but I'd never call him names.
Just an observation.
I'm curious to see how this plays out. Rudy seems to have the edge at this early stage. If he does win the nomination, a lot of folks here have drawn some pretty clear lines in the sand.
Next November could be very wierd. Most of the hard-core D true-believers seem opposed to her, too. So we could have Rudy v. Hilly, with both extremes not voting for either.
Very interesting times we live in.