I see you got a pretty good response from your piece, which is well written I might add.
I won't be supporting Giuliani during the primary, I will support someone who agrees with me on more than 21%.
I agree with all of Giuliani's detractors, which is reason enough not to support him during the primary. I am leaning toward Hunter and Gingrich, either one of whom would be head and shoulders above Giuliani in my view. Giuliani is a Lieberman Republican. I love Lieberman, but he's a Democrat (for the moment, recognizing that he may be forced out at some point). He and Giuliani both would fit nicely in a Democratic Party that had not gone completely crazy.
But it has gone completely crazy.
And we're in a war. The bottom line is we need someone prepared to lead us through. None of the Democrats running will be capable of doing that, and none of them want to. As much as I don't like Giuliani, he will fight, I believe. Some of the lesser lights running on the Republican side will not have the guts to take the pounding that a war will bring. Giuliani does, Hunter does, Gingrich does.
But a "Lieberman Republican" in the White House for most of a decade would definitely cause us no end of heart-burn, something like Swartzenegger in California, but with a bigger stage to play on. So I'm going to push for my candidates during the primary. But if its Giuliani, come November 08, versus some Democrat trying to out-Murtha Murtha, its an easy choice.
The one problem I see with your logic is that the "we're in a war" sentiment is not likely to go over well in 2008 regardless of who the GOP candidate is. I mean -- what's Rudy Giuliani's "we're in a war" campaign going to look like, and how would it be any more successful in 2008 than it would have been in 2006?