Being at C-PAC and talking to some people, I got a different sense: people want someone who will FIGHT and DEFEAT liberals---on SOME issues on the conservative agenda. So if, say, Rudy would take libs on over the Patriot Act/WoT/taxes and FIGHT, that would be sufficient, or if Mitt (as he promised) would veto spending and cut government and relish it, that would wash too.
People that I spoke to were hungry for someone who would FIGHT, not adopt a "new tone," not cooperate. That's why I said I thought Rudy's speech was mediocre. He had a lot of chances to "buff up" and whiffed. Mitt's talk was better, but still not hitting all the right notes.
Keep your eye on this dynamic, but from my perspective, it is this "issue" and no other traditionally "conservative" issue that is defining the nomination.
Well, if Hunter can't get traction, and I believe he very much will, I'll look at Romney closely. But from where I stand, Rudy, despite his good points, and his ability to get independents, will destroy the long term viability of the party, in Schwarzneggerian fashion. I don't beleive these early polls will pan out for him.
McCain is unstable and will see even bigger defections in terms of those conservatives not voting for him.
We are in a tight spot. It dismays me to know end that so many in the conservative press are treating the big three as inevitable. Why don't the ball less wonders at National Review or the Weekly Standard pick a proven conservative like Hunter and run him up the flagpole?
"People that I spoke to were hungry for someone who would FIGHT, not adopt a "new tone," not cooperate. That's why I said I thought Rudy's speech was mediocre. He had a lot of chances to "buff up" and whiffed. Mitt's talk was better, but still not hitting all the right notes."
Interesting analysis.