"Though wrong, voters in general see the fight to protect marriage and value the sanctity of life as an “unnecessary government intrusion” into their lives (remember the response to Terri Schiavo). Voters in 2008 will be much more interested in being gay (i.e. happy) than with the problem of gays wanting to enjoy all the rights and privileges that heterosexuals do."
I don't think this is true. The worst and most fallacious assumption the GOP could make is that the American people have moved away from a values-based agenda. The truth, as shown through many, many ballot initiatives in 2006, is that if anything voters have moved RIGHT socially. Faith and family seem to be more germaine than ever for the party. As an evangelical and social conservative I'd vote and support Rudy. But he's certainly not my first choice. I'm a Romney guy.
Traditional values absolutely matter in America. Any assumption to the contrary is beltway delusion.
You're wrong...wrong...wrong....when was the last time a Republican was nationally elected becaue of his social conservative views? Go look at the Contract with America...those were not social issues they were addressing. Wake up to the fact people care more about the big picture (our nation's security, both militarily and fiscally) than the smaller social issues. You can vote for whomever you please...but at least know you're doing it for yourself, not for the good of the Country.
I like Mitt too. But I am concerned that his chances of defeating Hillary are not good.
The Schiavo issue was politically a disaster for social conservatives. Even though I object strongly to how the issue was eventually "resolved," I am able to recognize a punch in the gut when I take one.