Second, I think we need to be able to state why we think a candidate is not acceptable as cogently as possible and be able to provide an alternative without simply posting the bumper sticker of said alternative candidate.
For a Catholic in solidarity with Pope Benedict and Mother Angelica, for example, Giuliani is impossible. It is important to take that into the calculus of who is viable even though it is far more important to consider the Protestant pro-life voters as well as the NRA voters in the country. Giuliani will have a very difficult time erasing his record and putting forward a new image.
It would be possible for someone like Fred Thompson to be supported especially if he chose a pro-life Vice-Presidential candidate (that would need to be someone either from the Great Plains, Mid-Atlantic, or California to balance Thompson's southerness). In some ways he would not be ideal for anyone on single issues, but based on his voting record might be more ideal for everyone than anyone else.
> First, your screen name makes me laugh. Thank you.
You're more than welcome, and I'm grateful to bring humor. It's much more fun than discord!
> For a Catholic in solidarity with Pope Benedict and
> Mother Angelica, for example, Giuliani is impossible.
So long as a better candidate is available, isn't that so? If the alternatives are actually worse, then the rule is to do the least harm possible, is it not?
As I mentioned in my previous post, I don't object to those who support somebody else or even those who state why they can't support Giuliani, as you just did.
My problem is with those who savage him (or any other candidate), apparently hoping to wound him so badly from within that he can't be a viable candidate. That's the democrats' job.