Redstate

...in running against her for her senate seat. I fully agree with your thoughts on why he wouldn't even make it out of a presidential primary.

If he was able to beat her in '06 that would not only win another seat for the "home team" but deliver a devestating blow to her presidential aspirations at the same time.

I'm sure she could still be a front-runner for the nomination, but how enthusiastic could dems really be about the presidential chances of someone who couldn't even defend her own seat in one of the bluest states in the country.

We'll see what the future brings, but I think your posting hits the mark squarely!

OTB's Southern commenters were pretty warm to the prospect of a Rudy candidacy. I'm not saying he doesn't have a steep hill to climb, but the "Rudy can't win" meme strikes me as wishful thinking from the grasstips/opinion leader contingent that doesn't necessarily pan out when the rubber hits the road.

That the guy's got stones matters more to conservatives than any litmus test.

What I'm afraid of.  Being the litmus test variety.

who could make it through the primary.  That is the likelihood of Guiliani winning the Republican primary.  Sure enough conservatives like him enough to vote for him over Hillary.  But what about against Gov. Bush, Sanford, Pawlenty, or Owens in a primary?

If Roe falls, Guiliani cakewalks.  If not, Guiliani should angle for the Official Colin Powell Moderate Republican Cabient Office Position.

I believe it's now sponsored by Sprite.

Obey Your Thirst - Sprite.

If he were the nominee, his divorce, questionable dealings in NY, the Kerik issues...would turnoff so many conservatives that he would get crushed.

...his stances on abortion, gay marriage and gun control.

. . .I have to hope that he won't win the nomination, because if he does, and the pro-life wing of the party refuses to do what the pro-choice wing has been doing all along--accepting the decision of a majority of the party and supporting the nominee in the general election--and the result is a Hillary Rodham Clinton presidency, it's going to do to me what all of the hand-wringing about the Schiavo case and Tom DeLay's ethical quirks hasn't; namely, it's going to make me consider finding another political party to support.  If I wanted to support a party that was into suicidal spasms of ideological purity, I'd invest heavily in tinfoil and giant puppets and become a moonbat.

. . . join the Libertarian or Constitution Party where you can have the "suicidal spasms of ideological purity" without the funky headgear. ;)

Seriously though I probably wouldn't support Giuliani in the primary*but if he were the nominee, chances are there would be plenty of reasons to vote for him* rather than just against the Democrat.

Moreover what if it turns out that while he's pretty socially liberal, he's actually a staunch federalist and wants to return more decisions to the States?  I could live with a pro-choice President who believed that Roe was wrongly decided and that the issue should be left at the State level.  

* Only because I don't know much about his position on a lot of national issues and there are other likely candidates who I already know I agree with.

** I don't know enough about his stance on issues like entitlement reform, environmental policy, federalism, education, health care reform, trade, or the things that a president can actually have an impact on.  Some people spend a lot of time and energy on social issues that may inflame their passions even though a President really has little impact one way or the other.

. . .are one thing--if the majority of the party says no to Rudy, that's the way it will be.  What gets my hackles up is when I hear people threatening to sit on their hands if they don't convince a majority to vote their way.  In a winner take all system like we have, coalitions are necessary and compromises a fact of life.  If one group in a coalition can't live with that, they should take a permanent walk and stop pretending to be part of the party, or the other members of the coalition can do the walking for them.

As I've said before, if the pro-life forces want to forestall a Giuliani (or, if she changed her mind, Rice) nomination, the best way would be to come up with a better nominee of their own--who I'd almost certainly vote for.  Part of that process will be looking at potential candidates with a ruthless eye for eliminating weaklings--the last thing the Republicans need is a national version of Bill Simon to win the nomination and hand the White House to Hillary or Kerry.

The "my way or the highway" sorts are just as bad as "Rinos" and just as ineffective.  

When it comes to Federalism.

. . . sometimes those of us who are staunch federalists have had to align ourselves with the "fair-weathered" sort.  See No Child Left Behind, the War on Some Drugs, Teri Schiavo, and the Partial Birth Abortion ban. ;)

However what makes this relationship tenable is knowing that on larger issues we generally have common cause.  See Social Security reform, War on Islamosfascism, judicial nominees, and health care reform.

Simply put, I'm not about to squander the 80 percent because we disagree on the other 20.

Those who vote for Republicans only because of the "20" as you put it?

If anything, 2004 showed the GOP moving in a more single-issue direction, not less.

I still haven't seen evidence that the GOP is moving toward single-issuedom.  The War on Terror, respecting religion, and decreasing the size of government (and increasing the purview of the market) all seem to be large parts of the coalition that couldn't command a majority on their own (save maybe the War on Terror).

. . . I wouldn't take such an ambiguous term to be an endorsement of the proposition that the electorate is dominated by single-issue votes.  A lot of people vote for the (wo)man because they like them or think they're a better person or have better leadership qualities than their opponent and "value voters" could just be another name for that.  In other words someone who votes for a candidate based on their "values" might just be voting for the candidate that they think is more moral (e.g. honest, steadfast, humble, etc.) than because they agree with how they think he'll come down on a hot-button "moral issue" like abortion or the definition of civil marriage.

Something else to consider is that there are a lot of issues in which a person's position may be a reflection of their deepest moral beliefs even though a pollster may not capture that.  For example, those of us who believe in "American exceptionalism" could be "values voters" and hence prefer Bush to Kerry because he seems to be the candidate who shares that "value."  Those who think that government is supposed to provide taxpayer subsidies for the poor may also make that claim.  As do those of us who consider taxation and wealth redistribution to be a form of legalized theft.  I've heard people refer to old-age entitlements as a "moral imperative" just as many of us who favor the reform or curtailment.  People's views on crime and punishment and rehabilitation are driven often by their sense of morality.  Some consider the despoliation of the environment to be a moral issue (not because they necessarily worship nature but because they feel they have a moral obligation to preserve it for the next generation).  Others think that focusing too much on the environment somehow means you may chose nature over the value of human life.

How does Rudy get points for national security?  I haven't been paying much attention to him since 9/11, I'm curious.

Cheers -

You all need to spend more time in NYC.  In NY, Rudy's testosterone rating is about that of the average cabbie.

Cheers -

Most recent Marist poll shows that no one really has a chance except for Mayor Guiliani.  He leads the sitting Senator, 49%-47%.  The Mayor could be a real team player if he takes out Mrs. Clinton in NY.  A Republican Senator from NY, Hillary out of the 2008 race, and Mr. Guiliani with accolades all around.  Here's your chance Rudy.  Go for it.