I don’t agree with Rudy on gay rights, abortion, or gun control. With a few caveats not worth detailing, I’m close enough to a “social conservative” to count as one. His personal baggage matters to me, because I think character matters in high office.

*Despite* all that, he would get my vote, today, in a heartbeat. War on Terror is big. I think Rudy has already said enough about appointing judges that won’t legislate from the bench, that I’m covered there. (I’ve got the same price as Scott Harris, but I’m satisfied today that it will be paid.) For better or worse, Rudy is someone that comes across as, “what you see is what you get.”

Almost *all* of the conservatives I know here in the Heart of Dixie substantially agree with me. There are some that will break away from Rudy on the social issues in the primary, but if you want a rough and ready idea of how it falls, consider how Bob Riley trounced Roy Moore in the governor’s primary last month. Rudy would probably lose 5 to 10% over those margins because Riley is more conservative and Moore more a flake than a likely social conservative primary presidential candidate. That still has Rudy picking up Alabama during the primary, by a hefty margin.

Like a lot of red states, Alabama has open primaries. That means that even true believers cross party lines if all the interest is on the other side. If Hillary and and Kerry are fighting it out on the Dem side, for example, then conservative Dems will cross over in droves to vote in the GOP primary, for a close Rudy and someone else race.

Finally, I’m entirely convinced on nothing more than a hunch and knowing the culture down here that the Bush/Gore 2000 race “DUI 5 days before the election” has innoculated some GOP candidates on some of the personal issues. It’s not that those issues don’t matter. They do. Look at the Bush margin of victory in AL in 2000. However, if the candidate has demonstrated enough personal character in other ways, they can overcome those issues. After all, character is a proxy for believing that the candidate will do the right thing under pressure. Rudy’s behavior on 911 gives him that out. (And check how the Alabama margin for Bush in 2004 was his 3rd best improvement, out of 50 states.) Reagan was divorced, back when that still mattered somewhat. It wasn’t telling in the race.

That’s my analysis of the Rudy prospects down South. Now, I’ll engage in a bit of wishful thinking. Rice will not run for pres, but she could be drafted for veep, with the right pres candidate, and enough pressure, similar to how Eisenhower got talked into running for pres. A Rudy/Condi ticket would absolutely destroy the idiot faction in the Democrats. I don’t think that the Dems will reform (or be replaced) until they are taken to the woodshed. Until we get a second serious party, the GOP will continue to drift to the center, in the worst mushy sense of the concept. (Center compromise of strong liberal and conservative position gives us things like the Bill of Rights. Mushy drift to the center gives us things like the 20 years of dithering over slavery that led to the Civil War. Not all center positions are created equal.)

Therefore, I see a Rudy/Condi ticket as the best hope to move the country in a conservative direction, in a productive manner.

Abortion, Gay Marriage etc simply don’t seem to rise to the need for federal rules either for or against. At best, the Federal government should simply ensure that all states have the right to decide for themsleves on this issue. (There may be some argumnet for “the health of the mother” bveing protected by the constitutions “right to life”, but that’s about it).

Gun Control, on the other hand, absolutely has a Federal position. It’s called the second amendment and it appears quite clear to me.

I like McCain better than Giuliani, but I’d vote for Giuliani over anyone I’ve seen yet on the Democratic ticket (and yes, I voted for Kerry against Bush).

Perhaps when the public feels cornered to accept irrational concepts like ’same-sex union between a man and a woman’ or ’same-sex parents’ or ‘illegal immigration’ or ‘just a clump of cells’ as truth and reason I would imagine they are reacting to this base emotionalism as a means to maintaining sanity.

If someone, anyone, could rationally explain what ’same-sex union between a man and a woman’ means then I would support it however, thus far the only response I receive from this question is to be damned as ‘a homophobe’. Personally, I am reacting to this type of emotional blackmail which is forcing me to believe in something which has no rational meaning.

The illiberal approach aside (not one American was allowed to voice their individual vote on a law of the land) this is what happened with Roe vs. Wade, our culture was forced to accept through judical fiat a word that was never defined, that being, fetus.

I agree with you, I do consider myself socially liberal but have less of a problem with the fight social conservatives are making because I do understand the difference between liberalism and leftism. A true liberal welcomes the discussion and hopes to win the debate on Gay Marriage or whatever and understands the problems a top down decision like Roe vs. Wade has on society.

To further clarify the point I was making to Roger is I believe the public is not as much liberal as they are apathetic with a libertarian streak on many social issues, this does not equate to socially liberal. When push comes to shove and/or the public feels cornered they sometimes become not just conservative but very conservative, Some people get upset that even in perceived liberal corners referendums against Gay Marriage pass with such clear majorities. In Ohio moral issues determined the outcome and doubled Bush’s African American vote percentage.

Your characterization of the leftist ruling class is quite accurate and the exact reason why I not only went “Neo-con” but re-registered as a Republican. The later shows my lack of hope with the Democratic Party being able to shake the leftist ruling class. My Grandparents on both sides where Marxist, my parents Socialist, believe me I get it.

I agree with your general take and much of what you say is why I believe Rudy would not be the nominee. I view the WOT as an issue of decreased importance (with the general electorate not with me, an example of my speaking to reality and not my personal position). Unless we are attacked it will continue to decrease in political importance, Rudy’s fortunes as a candidate ride such a trend.

The one possible “window” for Rudy would be if some other law and order type issue comes forward or continues to persist (like immigration) as most important and he convinces the electorate he is aligned with their sentiments and will be a man of action, but I do believe if it is economics or social issues then as they say “that dog won’t hunt“. In the general election regardless of the issues he would handily defeat any Democrat, but unlike Arnold Schwarzenegger he will not have the fortune of leap frogging the primary process, his true hurdle.

This is what happens when words lose all meaning to morally relative thought.

Watching professionals build an organization capable of taking and holding the majority of state houses lends to a different perspective than that held by people focused on the horse race at the top. Real politics is about 70% demographics, 10% actuarial science and 20% emotion. That might be overstating emotion a bit but it can be important from time to time – primarily fear.

Contemplating the meaning of a 4M increase in the number of owner occupied houses versus a 500K increase in the number of rental units occupied between ‘00 and ‘04 just isn’t terribly exciting. It’s terribly important though, and it hasn’t slowed down since ‘04, so I’m not going to spend much time worrying about a Deam takeover this fall.

‘08 is still too far away for this beauty contest stuff. The WoT might still be the most important issue in ‘08 but what if there is a recession in ‘07? What in Rudy’s experience is going to make him seem the right person to alleviate economic concerns? It’s just too early and I don’t believe that he’s terribly serious to begin with. If he were, then why didn’t he try and knock Clinton out in the NY Senate race? Everybody knows she’s running in ‘08, so Rudy couldn’t have been accused of a stepping stone campaign.

As I said in an different post, I agree with Rudy on just about everything and would be ecstatic with him as the GOP nominee, and while I do share your enthusiasm for Rudy, we do not represent the Republican mainstream especially primary voters.

As far as Bush not being able to unite, I’ll add that from my perspective he did for quite a while but politics, the close division of power in Congress along with so much at stake for the MSM, made for tough political times. The belief that political power is still up for grabs intensifies this. I feel sometimes Bush didn’t unite because he tried too hard to do so when he really should have gotten more in the oppositions face, especially the MSM. On these areas I do feel a Giuliani would fight back harder.

I often post what I sense reality to be and not just my personal position which is to the left, or more liberal then most Republicans. While I agree that a clear majority of people are consistently into free trade and law and order, I also believe the public to not be as socially liberal as you sometimes imply, I believe syn’s above post displays this sentiment.

On much I have grown to take the Reagan position of not speaking ill of those with whom you share allegiance with on issues most important.

Yehudit,

I have rarely posted of late, you happened to log on when I did, I appreciate the encouragement and if time permits I will. I always enjoy your posts and certainly identify you as one I most often politically agree with.

Rick Ballard

As someone who had spent much time and resource helping Democrats read political tea leaves I appreciate your rational explanations. It is one thing to spout the party line making predictions based on biased hope, hype (or whatever) something for which I have no desire. Getting a sense of the Republican Party outside my own natural boundary is something I have sought to understand ever since I became the dreaded “Neo-con” I am accused of being. (I’ll call it the Joe Lieberman syndrome). I think your posts often speak to realities as much if not more then personal sentiment, something I appreciate.

I look forward to your comments on GOTV ‘06 and ‘08 – you always had thoughtprovoking comments during the ‘04 race.