"I hope social conservatives would pick the candidate who most closely represents their positions in the general election--should Giuliani somehow get the nomination--and not strive for ideological purity where none can exist. Especially if they are faced with a choice between Rudy and Hillary or Obama."

So do I. Which is why I would vote for a third party candidate before voting for Rudy. Ain't a dime's worth of differnece on social issues between Rudy and Hillary or Rudy and Obama. They all are pro abortion and pro sodomy marriage. Hmm, maybe there is one difference. Obama and Hillary seem to believe in marriage. I don't think Rudy does. Now of course the bloggers, pundits and conservative journalists will all start spewing the Grand Old Pravda, demanding we stick with the Party, comrade. And most of us will knuckle under (I mean come on, we have a massive federal government from 2001 to 2006 and most of us on the right are like sheep). But enough of us may spend the day fishing.

Yeah, except, you have a better chance of Rudy not banning guns, than Hillary or Obama. You also have a better chance of Rudy becoming more Conservative, than Obama and Hillary.

A third-party candidate can't win. So, you'll end up with Hillary or Obama, then wonder how this could have happened.

Will all of the social conservatives be happy, when Hillary's in office? If Rudy gets the nom, you have one of two choices. Rudy or the Dem candidate (Hillary or Obama).

Which do you prefer?

If being a "social conservative" meant being against the government meddling with social issues, I'd be a "social conservative". Since that's not what most people think it means, I'm going to be between the devil and the deep blue sea next election anyway. At least Giuliani seems to have some respect for the concept of "Rule of Law", so getting craptacular social engineering initiatives via Executive Order might be slightly less likely from his Administration.

(A significant faction at the National Review is in the tank for Romney -- he of the emerging Massachusetts Health Care boondoggle, no less -- so I take much of the Rudy angst from that Corner with a huge grain of salt....)

Yes. Yes. That's right American Pundit, Rudy will be good on guns....wait, no. Lookee here! Yep, Rudy is singing the praises of gun control.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070211/ap_on_el_pr/on_the2008_trail

If Rudy is not going to the right in the GOP primary, why would he go right in Washington ? Nobdoy ever gets more conservative on the Potomac.

So I'm not buying. Again on guns, there is not much of a difference between Rudy and the Dems.

While generally agreeing with Klein's point, I couldn't let this escape my notice:

But Giuliani is a far more gifted communicator, he's a hands on manager who immerses himself in details, he holds people accountable for mistakes...

Bernie Kerick?

Or his predecessor, Howard Safir?

Ray Harding's doofus son?

There's a whole raft of articles exploring-in excruciating detail-how Giuliani didn't hold people accountable-especially if they were patronage picks made by Liberal boss Ray Harding.

I'm not saying that would necessarily derail Giuliani's presidential campaign, but I don't think it can be airbrushed out of his curriculum vitae either.

There's a great scene in "Butch Cassidy & The Sundance Kid," when the two protagonists are about to jump from a high cliff into a stream of water below.

The Sundance Kid expresses to Butch that he's apprehensive about jumping because "I can't swim !"

Butch begins laughing, and says something to the effect of, "You idiot, it doesn't matter, because the jump is going to kill us !"

And that is how I see the 2008 Presidential election.
If we fail to elect someone (Rudy G., Mitt R.) who will be aggressive in prosecuting the War on Terrorism, then fussing over secondary issues such as same-sex marriage, abortion, and waiting periods for guns will be of little consequence---because failure to aggresively prosecute the War against Islamic Jihad will get us killed.