because the margin of victory is too close.
do you honestly think that if Bush had won 45 state victories in 2000 and 2004, that there would be much debate on FR over "can conservative candidate X win the general election". there wouldn't be.
but the voter demographics and mood of the electorate are sending us a different message. a viable, well known, conservative standard bearer with a message and the ability to deliver it has not emerged, and should have already. we cannot afford to lose to Hillary. I'll repeat again - WE CANNOT AFFORD TO LOSE TO HILLARY.
so all this stuff being tossed around on FR about "you are not a conservative if you support Rudy". I'm willing to give that up, if it means the Clintons don't get to sit in the white house again.
I can always tell who isn't actually reading any of the links I've posted about Rudy.
Some very smart, conservative reporters have made the case that Rudy is fiscally conservative and that he's conservative in other areas as well.
And this crap thrown around that we who like Rudy aren't conservative is just so much hyperbole that the place is literally drowning in it.
Some guy actually posted to me today that he was going to write a check to Hillary and would post a copy of it here instead of ever voting for Rudy. Now that's conservative. /sarcasm
Mitt Romney is sharp, viable and is running on a conservative platform. Furthermore, he doesn't have Guilianni's strange personal baggage. He's a normal guy, a good husband and has a beautiful family. And he can well articulate a conservative message.
Actually, I don't believe the above statement is generally true (though it may apply to some), and thus I don't make that argument. Btw, in my opinion the best explanation for conservative support of Guilianni is they are running scared. When people are running scared, it hampers their ability to make good decisions.