[CharlesWayneCT]

Ohio is bad now, but that damage was done in 2006. Their new governor is a democrat, but is conservative on some issues that would put him at odds with Hillary.

And the ohio activists are smarting from their defeat (and the smart ones are saying “i told you so” to the blackwell group which decided to try to win without any party apparatus and failed miserably).

Ohio turned against the generic “R”. Why does anybody think running a candidate who is the epitome of a generic “R” (Rudy Giuliani) overcomes that problem?

If we don’t want to lose more house seats in 2008 in Ohio, we need a strong conservative candidate who can communicate effectively, energize the base, who is seen as clean (to counter the corruption of Ohio), who is principled, and can overcome the difficulties of 2006.

Rudy is defeatism. His selection would tell Ohio voters “You were right to reject republicans, we were stupid, but now we will be like your liberal buddies, so come back to us”.

[HostileTerritory]

Their new governor is a democrat, but is conservative on some issues that would put him at odds with Hillary.

The way he seems to disagree with Hillary is that he opposes the Iraq War and also has turned down money for abstinence-only programs.

Why does anybody think running a candidate who is the epitome of a generic “R” (Rudy Giuliani) overcomes that problem?

How do you figure that description for Giuliani? If nothing else, he is a unique personality who transcends party for a lot of people. Normally he's criticized for that here, called a RINO, not the epitome of a Republican! Fred Thompson, meanwhile, is praised for being an actor who voted an almost-solid Republican line in the Senate (ACU scores in the 80s being his strongest qualifier) but with no accomplishments. He's liked precisely because he is a generic "R" with the generic "R" profile designed to please the base but no one else.