[scarface367]

The reality is that if the general election comes down to Rudy and Hillary then Rudy is the better choice, even as far as the pro-life movement is concerned. The only way have any effect on abortion is through the judicial process due to Roe v. Wade. Hillary will appoint liberal justices and it is likely the next president will see at least 2 Supreme Court nominations. Rudy has stated he will support strict constructionists to the court.

You may not believe him, but between Clinton and Giuliani I'd take the likely possibility of getting solid judicial picks over the certainty of getting liberal justices. Staying home or voting third party guarantees the latter, while voting for Rudy , if he is even the nominee, gets you the former. Which do you think has a better chance of having any effect on abortion?

[Manic_Episode]

I understand all that perfectly, and I still cannot vote for Rudy.

These are very high stakes indeed, which is exactly why all thoughts of Rudy must stop here and now.

[dano1]

I can't see Giuliani. Someone made a good point that by recently making nice with the conservative positions, Giuliani has now cost himself a lot of credibility with his former supporters who genuinely liked Giuliani precisely for his liberal leanings. Presumably most Republicans would still vote for him as against Hillary, but too many wouldn't vote for him or wouldn't give him the level of support he may need.

The thing with Romney is, after what we did to Kerry on the "flip-flop" issue, there is just no way in the world we can nominate Romney with a straight face. So basically I think we unwittingly burned our bridges with Romney in 2004 by the way we went after Kerry. The Democrats would eat our lunch on the flip-flopper charge if we turned around and nominated Romney in '08.