Replies

>> I'll make my position perfectly clear. I fear that Rudy is not the canditate that I originally thought he was. However, if he wins the party nomination, which I find likely, I'm not only voting for him, but I promise heaps of derision and abuse on anyone who breaks ranks and goes 3rd party. I'm a loyal Republican. If that's a sin on FR, so be it. That much is immutable, I will not budge.

I'm sorry, that's not clear at all to me.

First you say, Rudy is not as good a candidate as you thought; but you'll vote for him despite his faults. OK, sometimes we hold our nose when we vote.

But then you promise "heaps of derision and abuse on anyone who breaks ranks..." That's not just holding your nose any more, that's going to war FOR a bad candidate and AGAINST others who stick to principle, and indeed, AGAINST the very principles that make the Republican Party worth voting for.

Two things will follow. 1) You're selling out Republicanism to expediency and lust for power. 2) You'll lose anyway.

It's odd to see the Rudy boosters deny the clear problems Rudy would have holding the base together, given the rancor his candidacy has generated to date. Heck, Rudy's even changed my mind on McCain - I thought I could never vote for the guy in the general, but if the choice were McCain or Rudy, I'd pick McCain now. That's saying a ton right there.

They somehow believe that Rudy could make up for lost socon votes by running leftward. However, as long as Rudy remains pro-war, he can't do that and make up the difference.

So if the Rudy boosters are so concerned about holding the White House in 2008, why do they persist in pushing someone from the far left of the GOP who clearly would not be able to hold the party together? Duncan Hunter is my first choice, but I'm not naive - he hasn't gotten traction and probably would be too far right to win in 2008. So I'm willing to be pragmatic and support the GOP centrist Fred Thompson.

But many of the Rudy boosters seem largely unwilling to make the same move now.