Honestly, neither of them will beat Hillary.

I agree that Rudy’s baggage will drag him down, but I suspect Fred is already cooling to the prospect of actually running. I bet you’ll see Fred looking reluctant pretty soon, either because he really is or because it serves him better to act that way, or likely both.

I do think, though, that RV’s comparison of Fred to W is apt. If you didn’t like what you got with W, there’s a pretty good chance you wouldn”t like what you get from Fred.

Still, in this lefty’s view, better Fred than Giuliani, who gets more truculent by the day.

Probably.

Is that enough to discount his run for the Presidency out of hand?

Probably not.

Is it a good enough stick to try to beat him with if you support a different candidate?

Probably.

Likewise conservatives are to be shocked that Thompson has argued to limit the scope of governmental oversight and regulation which required a store owner to have a license to sell literature the government didn’t like.

Hmmm…limiting the reach of government. Used to be a time that was called conservative.

Is Thompson too cozy with the trial lawyers?

Probably.

Is that enough to discount his run for the Presidency out of hand?

Probably not.

I guess I ought to do a google on the phrase “political compromise” and see if that phrase as even ever appeared in any blog.

We get the voices of maybe 500 people featured in articles and maybe another 5,000 reacting thereto.

How is that at all indicative of what the other 122 million people are really going to do come November, 2008?

The same would happen to the Democrats if they picked someone like Edwards, imo, whose message appeals only to liberal Democrats.

Of course demanding only purity is a bad idea, and divisiveness is terrible for a country. That’s why I’ll consider voting Republican if Hillary and Giuliani get nominated. That said you want to elect someone that can get the job done the way you want it done. If I were a conservative I’d be terrified of ending up with another Bush. I’d be looking for a candidate with good conservative credentials (100% purity is only demanded by 100% radicals) who also has shown capacities for bipartisanship. Obama is that candidate for the dems, I don’t know who it could be for the repubs, but I understand them being exacting in a candidate that is going to face a very hard race.

By requiring all kinds of ideological tests for these candidates, these pundits are not allowing them to be themselves (before you say anything I also don’t like it when the Democrats do this)

Also, the moderate wing of the Republican party consistently gets marginalized- as all of the GOP hopefuls are forced to play to the base. Yes, it happens on both sides, but that is what is building the movement for Unity ’08 in this country. I happen to think that ideologues in both parties have too much control over the primary process, but of course it seems more obvious to me when Republicans do this.

I do admit time can change a lot in politics, but I stand by my ignorant point that the conservative pundits are expecting too much-my conclusions come not from what I think of conservatives, but from what the pundits have gone on record as saying about them.

CO: LOL

That your party wins is good, but your values must win as well. Bush was electable (why, I can’t fathom, but obviously he was) but turned out to be a lousy conservative, promoting huge government and overspending. Conservatives understandably are worried about making sure that this time around, the GOP candidate is a real conservative. Think of it this way, if Huckabee ran as a democrat and won, would you be happy? Sure the dems would have won, but you’d have someone in the presidency who openly admits they don’t believe in evolution!

Conservatives, at least some of them, have learned their lesson. A very tough race is coming up for them, so of course electability is important, but not all-important. As hard as it is for you to understand, conservative people want the best for the country, though they have different ideas on how to achieve it than you. Winning is fine, but not at the cost of electing someone who would not hold to ideals central to conservative thought.

However, not the case……therefore, once again demonstrating “moderate” here is really a euphemism for “let’s go Democrats!”

But hey, your version makes it sound like conservatives are real dummies so go ahead and run with that!

Just as you and Gray take hope from making false assumptions about conservative voters, I’ll take my hope from the obvious misreading of fact; it’s still a long way till Nov ’08 and and Democrats making assumptions that the election is in the bag can only be a good thing for the GOP.

The candidate must have a stable family life- with not more than one divorce, must have a solid history of being pro-life and anti-gay marriage/civil unions, must be solidly behind the second amendment, must have a decidedly conservative voting record, must be a “real” Christian with family values- whatever that means- must never have raised taxes anywhere for any reason (or will encounter disapproval from Grover Norquist, lol), must be ready to build a wall on the US/Mexico border, and must have vetoed every spending bill he ever encountered. He must epitomize the glory days of the Reagan era, and should, most importantly be prowar and a testosterone filled man’s man, who wouldn’t shrink from pushing the little red button if called to do so. Above all, he must vilifythe social programs of big government and worship free markets and entrepreneurship. Last but not least, he must believe in American exceptionalism, and build his proposed foreign policy around that belief.