As long as people are convinced that the two must be the same, we will all continue to be disappointed and at contention with others we think we should be in constant agreement with.
As much as I would like to see a President of the United States act like a conservative; balance the budget, reduce government spending and government size; provide for our common defense, and promote our general well-being, I realize that life is a series of compromises.
As a result, I generally support the current President, even though he has exhibited no control over spending and I disagree with his treatment of our national security over the southern border.
I generally support Republicans in Congress, even though they made a complete mess of the homosexual predator situation by refusing to deal with a mess because of political correctness.
The point is, that while I would like to see a true conservative President, the only one I'm hearing about is Duncan Hunter, who most voters have not heard of. And even then, I don't know enough about him to be confident that he would act like a conservative in the White House.
So that leaves me with Republicans. And of all the people in the race, the one I like best is Rudy. Why? Because I think he would do the best job of getting the important things done. We can disagree about qualifications, philosophies, and track records, but I am most comfortable supporting a person I can agree with who appears to be electable.
Of course, a Guliani / Hunter ticket would work for me.
Well, not exactly. Rudy's track record as a Republican is marginal at best -- and he deliberately left his party affiliation blank on a recent FEC filing.
I suspect his real goal is to secure the Republican nomination, then run his entire campaign as a "nothing" candidate by lashing out at both the Bush administration and his Democratic opponent. This is really the only way he can really hope to win, based on his political track record and ideological flaws.