And yet, rather than honestly admit that they like Giuliani because he is a flaming social liberal they cloak their reasoning with fatuous protestations that Giuliani either 1) is the "only" Republican who can win, or 2) he is the only candidate who can win the war on Terror?
If those aren't a "one issue" arguments, there is no such animal.
And several have said just that openly in the forum. And treat the term "social conservative" as a perjorative.
They detest social conservatives and they derisively call social conservatives "one issue voters" despite the fact that social conservatives reject Giuliani because he falls short on a dozen or more important issues, just as you point out.
We were asked to take a half-step towards liberalism to support Bush. And our concerns have been borne out by Bush's big-government conservatism. But at least Bush is conservative on some core values.
Now we are asked to take a complete leap to the left and abandon the movement that created the Reagan conservative majority in the first place. And for questioning the wisdom of going back to the losing, perpetual minority party ways of the Rockefeller wing of the party, we are unappeasables. Or, better yet, using a trick right out of the Clintonista playbook, we are "Rudy haters."
One would think emulating the Clintonistas might give them pause, seeing that they are posting on what was and still is the leading anti-Clinton website. But they apparently have no sense of shame that I can see.
If those aren't a "one issue" arguments, there is no such animal.
Projection is another liberal trait that apparently many Rudy boosters have assumed. But that's the funny thing about supporting a liberal to be the nominee. You end up acting like a liberal to support him.
#220: You absolutely nailed it.