I was at a Republican group meeting the other night, and minority leader Boehner was there to speak. My cousin asked him about getting back to the social conservative roots. He said they have to get moderates and independents to vote, and the social conservatives will vote for the GOP because usually their candidates are socially conservative. My cousin pointed out that’s not happening as much, and he still said they have to pull the moderate and independent to vote. My cousin remarked that the social conservatives are the strong base that faithfully gets out there and works for the candidate, and a lot of them are getting frustrated about the drift from social conservative values. She said one of the candidates they won’t get behind is Guiliani. He seemed to disagree, and he proceeded to talk about how social conservatives love Guiliani (not this one) who he said will move further to the right. Basically, it didn’t feel like she got anywhere. He seemed to think social conservatives will continue to stay loyal as they appeal to the moderates and independents to pull them under the tent, but my cousin and I both disagree. There is only so much social conservatives will take before they split off and form a new conservative party or join a more conservative party like the Constitution Party.
Your cousin isn't wrong, exactly, but the social conservatives don't understand that they cannot elect (look, they can't even nominate a Republican candidate, for heaven's sake) on their own.
What they will do to go into coalition with non-socon Republicans is unclear, has always been unclear, and represents the downfall of Roveism.
Talking to so-called Republican ‘leadership’ is like talking to a brick wall. They’re not interested in what grass-root conservatives have to say. They’ve got an agenda, and it evidently has little to do with life, liberty and the sanctity of private property.
Sad.
If he thinks social conservs will "go along" with Rudy based on security alone, he's sadly mistaken.