Dear Dog Gone,
"Many social conservatives pose a problem for the GOP..."
Many Republicans who are not social conservatives really demonstrate that they are clueless about social conservatives, and about the possible candidacy of Mr. Giuliani.
I'm a social conservative.
I'm also loyal to the party, and willing to vote for compromise candidates.
In 1980 (my first time voting for a president), I voted for Ronald Reagan. Ditto in 1984.
In 1988, I voted for George HW Bush in the primary and in the general election. Ditto 1992, primary and general election.
In 1996, I voted for Bob Dole, primary and general election. I also donated money to his campaign
In 2000 and 2004, I voted for George W Bush in both primaries and both general elections. I also donated money to his campaign.
As a social conservative, I'm willing to take an imperfect candidate who is electable over a better candidate who isn't. I'll take a half loaf, or even just a slice or two, to get someone elected. I think that my voting record shows this.
However, I'm not willing to go backwards. I'm not willing to vote for a candidate who not only doesn't provide a half-loaf, or even a slice or two, or even some crumbs, but may very well take back what little we've gotten in the past.
Mr. Giuliani is a principled social liberal. I admire him for his forthrightness in this regard (at least in the past - there are some signs he's trying to romneyize his past, now). However, I don't expect him to govern as a social conservative. I don't expect him to view pro-abort jurists as not strict constructionists. Nor jurists who think lots of gun control is just hunky-dory. Nor jurists who think that homosexual rights are also found in the Constitution. MR. GIULIANI doesn't think that Roe was bad constitutional law. MR. GIULIANI doesn't think that lots of gun control is unconstitutional. MR. GIULIANI does believe that homosexuals have special rights that the rest of us don't think they have.
I believe that Mr. Giuliani is a man of principle and will govern from the left on social issues.
He is not a flawed, imperfect candidate to social conservatives. He is a complete disaster, an utter catastrophe, someone with whom we agree, on social issues, a lot closer to 0% than to 100%. Or 80%. Or 50%.
From the perspective of social conservativism, it is difficult to differentiate Mr. Giuliani from Mrs. Clinton.
Mr. Giuliani is NOT a compromise candidate for us. He is a "heads we (country club Republicans) win, tails you (social conservatives) lose" candidate to be forced on us by the country club Rockefeller wing of the Republican Party. If he is nominated, many social conservatives will conclude that we've already lost the election. No matter who wins, a liberal Democrat will have been elected.
Therefore, many social conservatives will do for the first time what I will do for the first time in 2008, if Mr. Giuliani is the Republican nominee. They, and I, will not vote for the Republican candidate.
sitetest
I think you demonstrate what I'm talking about. Social conservatives are not a uniform block, and they do have varying degrees of being able to accept less than a perfect candidate.
But when push comes to shove, they won't choose the lesser of two evils. They'll not vote at all.
A very well stated analysis of why a Rudy nomination would cause a huge split in the Republican Party--and change it permanently with a big move to the LEFT!!!! (And your analysis didn't even need to mention the 'train wreck'--aka his personal life.) That is a 'victory' that we do NOT need!
The Gipper makes the same case that you just did,,,,
"So, it was our Republican Party that gave me a political home. When I signed up for duty, I didn't have to check my principles at the door. And I soon found out that the desire for victory did not overcome our devotion to ideals".
--Ronald Reagan Remarks at the Republican National Convention in New Orleans, August 15, 1988.
No thanks, Rudy.