Karol--

Who would have thought that a 69-year-old former actor would be president?

Who would have thought that a 65-year-old party-switcher-and-then-re-switcher, best known for disasters at Gallipoli, would become Prime Minister in the middle of another war?

Who would have thought that an abrasive prosecutor would be able to beat a black incumbent in one of the most liberal cities in America?

Politics is a mysterious business, art more than science; to quote Tolkien, "even the very wise cannot see all ends." Ronald Reagan and Winston Churchill surprised us; perhaps Rudy will again.

I think the same about Obama--that he would have a better chance in the general election but won't make it out of the primary.

As for Giuliani, I'm resigned that the executive doesn't have much power over abortion except for the judge thing, which he's supposedly sound on. If other pro-life voters realized that, he'd have a better chance. But I'm reading (from bloggers) that he's not making the right noise on other issues close to conservative hearts--guns, immigration, global warming. It's not just *one*, it's at least four ... I hate to say it but I'm beginning to need an asterisk on why you're ABM. I know his tendency for stabbing Republicans (and a few principles) in the back, but ... Churchill crossed the aisle twice and was still the wartime leader who engineered England's survival in WWII. Not saying McCain is Churchill timber. Just saying I haven't ruled him out.

Rudy would be for abortions if he didn't knock up so many girls himself out of wedlock.

Sounds like a stellar argument for abolishing primaries if you ask me. When you think about it, our entire political choice basically boils down to what a handful of douchebags in Iowa and New Hampshire decide (since they typically set the tone for the rest of the primaries). That's no way to run a country.

How else is a party supposed to pick candidates? You want them chosen by a handful of political operative douchebags instead of voters in Iowa and New Hampshire?

You're talking about going off the party system. I think that might be a tad impractical.

Karol, you are absolutely correct, except that someone has to win, and by your reckoning there simply isn't a Republican that can win the "base". Rudy is like democracy; the worst possible choice, except for all the others....

Put it another way: who's going to beat him? McCain's the only one with a real shot (IMHO) and his "base" problems are just as bad if not worse. (Remember that South Carolina shot McCain down, going with the more-authentically-Christian Bush....) McCain also has a definite scent of being past his "sell by" date. Also consider that especially early in a campaign its as much about not making mistakes as anything else, and McCain is famous for foot-in-mouth disease. That sort of thing is cute once, when running as a pseudo-outsider. I don't think the "Straight Talk Express" thing will play so well second time around.

And Romney? He's from Massachusetts. I think those waters have been poisoned when it comes to national office.

The only dark horse out there who has a shot is, I think, Fred Thompson. To put it a more honest way, he's the only other (R) that I'd actually work for in the coming months.

We would be foolish to elect the next President based on their position on abortion.

Karol, You're wrong.

What exactly can a President do about abortion except nominate Supreme Court justices?

Exactly.

So, if he promises to nominate strict-constructionist judges in the Thomas-Scalia mold, what possible difference could his personal views on the subject mean?

That's going to be the thinking of conservative voters.

You'll get to eat those words.

"So, if he promises to nominate strict-constructionist judges in the Thomas-Scalia mold, what possible difference could his personal views on the subject mean?"

Lots. You never know what decisions the pres will have to make. Therefore his/her position on this issue is VERY telling about what kind of person he/she will be. It's not just the issue, it's the worldview.

Tai, I hope to be wrong. It's an issue of trust to pro-lifers; they feel they can only trust someone who is also pro-life.

As a sidenote, I consider myself pro-life but abortion doesn't rank in my top 10 issues that influence my voting decision. But I know I'm not the norm.

Karol, In normal times, I might just agree with your pessimism. But these are not normal times. The overriding issue at this flex point in time is the War on Terror. The Republican base knows this. And I trust the base to respond to this in a responsible manner. Great men are made for times like these and Rudy has demonstrated to the country his ability and has earned their trust. They will trust him when he says that he will appoint judges in the mold of the last two appointees. The base understands the consequences of electing the Hildebeast, especially when the antics of the current, Democrat-controlled, Congress are so readily on display. It also understands it needs a winner at the top of the ticket, if the Republicans are going to regain control of that body. Yes, the media are going to try and savage Rudy, both for his personal life and his less-than-conservative stances on many issues. However, it is my opinion that, with his well-deserved stature and reputation with the voters, this will only be perceived as "the politics of personal destruction" and people will rally to his side, as a result. The Republican base will understand that, with Rudy as the standard bearer, New York and New Jersey will be GOP states. Where will the Dems pick up those lost electoral votes? Ohio? Pennsylvania (another possible GOP pick up)? Florida? I think not. Also (regarding Congress) the GOP needs to pick up seats in NY, NJ and all of New England, where Chris Shayes is the only GOP congressman. Granted (again) these guys will probaly not be doctrinaire conservatives but, with Pelosi and Murtha in charge right now, purple looks pretty good right now. The base should (and will) put Rudy at the top; it's getting the right people elected farther down the ticket that will be just as critical. The base aren't boobs, and Rudy is smart enough to let people know that it is the guys and gals in Congress that write the laws, not him. He'll make sure that the people he appoints to the bench will interpret those laws in accordnace to the (written) Constitution.

Well I am a Republican primary voter, and Rudy has been my own personal favorite for some time. He and I dont agree on everything, but he is an excellent leader, tough minded and understands the War on Terror. Mostly I want to win and he should win handily, and therefore he keeps the Democrats out of the WH. Now squeezing him a little to make some promises of non-squishy Judges that wont grow in office, makes a hell of a lot of sense and should be done consistently.

It would be hard to imagine a Republican party in such disaray as to give it self up for defeat. I've been constantly astounded by the party leadership in making a number of bad decisions but the base does not seem to cover itself in self-pity and doubt and I feel would embrace a proven leader. This is especially so if they could coax some real promises from Rudy about judges, the 2nd amendment issue and border security. I believe the base would get behind a proven winner with chrisma and a real desire to win the "War on Terrorism."