It is not an "absurd notion." It is likely.
And you don't have the power to stop him unless you field someone who can get more votes.
Well, Freepers tried it the Rudophile way, but Rudophiles have no problem with lying, so it makes things difficult.
For weeks, we heard Rudophiles tell us about how they simply supported Rudy in spite of his views because it was practical. They told us that if we could show a more Conservative, electable candidate, they’d be right on board!
Along comes Fred Thompson. Polls have him also beating Hillary.
So the Rudophile reaction was, naturally, to follow through and start carrying water for Fred, right?
Not!
Nope, instead we get daily assaults on Fred Thompson, and nary a Rudophile has wavered in their support of NARAL’s favored son.
Which goes to our original point, we the anti-Liberals, that is: Rudophiles support Rudy BECAUSE of his Liberal views, not in spite of them. The endless list of what should be deal-breaking Liberal stances doesn’t make a Rudophile blink. Why? Because they too are Liberal!
Even when presented with a candidate who met their demands (when they were lying about being willing to support a more Conservative candidate in the primaries) did not phase them. It is no accident. That’s why Conservatives can now see that it really is about Liberalizing the party, and has nothing to do with anything else when it all comes down to it.
It is an internal fight between good and evil, with the Rudophiles trying to tell us that 80% evil ain’t all that bad. We who want Conservatism to survive 2008 will continue to push for a Conservative candidate; those folks like yourself who wish it dismantled in favor of a progressive GOP will just have to deal with our opposition.