[stockstrader]

We did not vote when dubya's father ran because we did not like his politics. It was a huge mistake!

Exactly. W's dad moved too far to the left, and he caused Perot to be an option. So now some want to AGAIN move the Party to the left with a liberal like Rudy???

Guess what? The same thing will happen.

If you want to elect Hillary by SPLITTING and DIVIDING the Party WIDE OPEN (just like it happened before),,,

while DEMORALIZING THE BASE,,,

a liberal like Rudy is the RIGHT MAN AT THE RIGHT TIME.

[jonathanmo]

It was FISCAL conservatives that voted for Perot, not Socons...

It may suck for some, but fiscal conservatives and social conservatives need each other and the Republican Party is the ONLY viable option today.

[E-Mat]

Understand this: We're talking about POLITICIANS and POLITICAL parties in a DEMOCRACY. By their self-preservationist natures, both politicians and parties respond to issues that they think will help them get elected, and don't respond to issues that don't seem to make a difference in whether they get elected. If we want politicians that completely refuse to represent our values on:

1. Sanctity of Life
2. Sanctity of Marriage
3. Constitutional Judges (not activist ones)
4. Gun Rights
5. Fiscal Issues and Federalism

Then, by all means, we should vote for Rudy under any circumstance. But if we do, then the Republican party will continue to morph into a party that succumbs to values that are exactly the opposite of our own. If we vote for Rudy anyway, then we've trained the elephant into thinking that it's okay to step on our right foot as long as he doesn't touch our left.

If Rudy is the nominee, and if there is an upright third-party candidate, the Republican party can go ahead and watch my vote jump ship. Yes, it would be unfortunate if our elephant won't be able to perform in the circus this next term, but the hell if I'm going to let him step on my right foot!