Replies

As a Southerner, I can understand the political benefit to the Republican Party in not always having a Southern face. However, as a conservative, I sincerely fear that Giuliani and McCain, and possibly Romney, will suppress the conservative base dramatically. Rudy might be able to get 48% of the vote in NY, McCain may be able to do the same in California, and perhaps even Romney can do the same in Mass. Not much consolation if the nationwide result is an Electoral College thumping.

Rudy might be able to get 48% of the vote in NY, McCain may be able to do the same in California, and perhaps even Romney can do the same in Mass. Not much consolation if the nationwide result is an Electoral College thumping.

Well, here is the map from 2004. Note the competitive states in the North, and the mostly deep red States in the South and Mountain West. You can hardly disagree that Romney and Guiliani would do better in those competitive northern states (and NH) than would a conventional Bush-redux southern/western Republican. Please name the red states that you say we would lose by offering a candidate such as Romney or Guiliani? I don't see any.

Sure, it would be great to have 100% conservative President. However, such a candidate would not get us past 50% unless he had magnificent political talent and appeal. We don't have any such candidate, if we did he would come immediately to mind. Instead we have to go looking for a conservative savior, and project our hopes on candidates we had never heard of three months ago. Unearthing 100% conservatives of middling talent and appeal will not get us past 50% and we will LOSE.

I support Romney, because he is the most conservative of the three viable candiates, has a record as being as conservative as feasible in MA, is working hard to please conservatives now, and has plenty of political talent and potential appeal to a wider electorate.