I still don't think that pro-Rudy guys understand that the problem with Rudy in the general election is NOT a conservative revolt. It is that he will be unable to energize those conservatives to care enough over the difference and thus even go to the polls.
Everytime I make this point. I get Rudy folks asking me "Yea but will you vote for him if he gets it." Yes. Yes, I will.
I wouldn't be the problem for Rudy. The problem, again, would be those social conservatives may vote often but not every time. This would be one of those times where they are NOT going to be motivated to go vote.
Hate Hillary is not going to get it done anymore than Hate Bill got it done for Bob Dole.
My preference/bias is well known, I like Duncan Hunter. Name ID is only a problem in the rimary. The two major party nominees will all the name ID they can stand going into November 08, no matter who they are.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic Ping List:
Please ping me to all note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
I will vote for the candidate who I agree with most. In the GOP primary it likely won't be Rudy. But if he wins the GOP nomination, I will vote for Rudy over any democrat that's running.
Interesting question at this point is, why, when the current President is probably the most outwardly socially conservative President since Reagan, if not more, is the party in this position? The answer imho is leadership. There is no real socially conservative leadership that has surfaced with staying power and presidential potential within the party. Sure, Hunter may sound like a great guy, but he is unknown, and he is unknown because he has not been seen as a leader to this point. This will make him a tough sell to the party and in the general election.
I suspect for this election cycle it is too late for him to become one, because the socially conservatives 'leaders' have not risen to the occasion while others have shown leadership within the party over the past few years.
Again imho this is the fault of social conservatives, certainly those that claim to be socially conservative leaders. and now the current 'take the ball and go home attitude' is only going to make it worse for their position. It reminds me of Buchanan's rigidity and the Reform party comedy, and how effective that was. They should instead work within the system and participate to influence someone like Gulliani instead of warring with him. And all the while work towards building future leadership so that they don't find themselves in this current state within the party.
Gulliani has one advantage, in that he has a track record of being upfront in his opinions, and yet does not come off as being unreasonable. If he were to reach out to social conservatives, and allay some of their conerns, I think it would definitely make him a stronger candidate. How interesting it would be if he chose a socially conservative VP...As for McCain, who can trust that guy? He would say what you want to hear.
2. Has a long history of questionable friends (Bernie Kerick, Ray Harding). There goes the "honesty" card.
3. Has a history of abandoning women when a new gal catches his eye. At least BC remained married. There goes the "moral integrity" card.
4. Lived with two gay roomates after divorce. Not that there's anything wrong with it. ;-)
5. Is on the record CONDEMNING the 1996 immigration reforms and Prop 187, stating that "NY thrives because of immigrants, documented and UNdocumented. There goes the "securing our borders card."
6. Has a history of being vehemently anti-gun, claiming that the 2nd amendment allows for "reasonable regulation." Of course, this is fitting for a law and order fetishist.
7. The last point illustrates that he has little understanding of "original intent."
8. Pro-abortion.
9. Governed a city where the majority of inhabitants are either effete yuppies, third world immigrants, or the children of the latter. There goes the "I am an American" card.
10. Has said NOTHING about foreign policy, other than superficial sound bites and Likud Party talking points (plagiarist!). So much for "Mr. National Security."
11. Had VERY low approval ratings until 9/11 happenned, due to a lack of ethics, and clumsy handling of police shootings. There goes the "competance" card.