I laugh at the notion that only the South is interested in social conservatism. His argument that Rudy does not lose any Southern seats is foolish - for it does not take into consideration the millions of non-Southern evangelical voters around the nation.

Knock 5 points off Missouri and say good-bye to 11 electoral votes. Knock just a couple off Iowa and that one goes blue too. Colorado? Heck, its only the headquarters for Dobson's Focus on the Family.

A lot of states like Oklahoma are solidly GOP in federal elections but still have Democrats elected locally - due to large Democrat registrations. Why do we still have so many Democrat Senators from red states?

Lorie, your right man at the right time has two sides to it. As important as fighting the Islamic fascists is to people like myself - I also think we are fighting a cultural "war" here in our backyard. It is not getting better either- though the Bush administration has at least helped in a couple areas.

By the way, would someone explain the Catholic appeal of Rudy if he is apostate on their social beliefs? How does Rudy get more Catholic voters than he loses?

I lived in Giulliani's NYC. I was there on 9/11. I admire Rudy. But the idea that "putting NY in play" is reason to vote for him is weak.

First, NY will depend on who comes out of the Democrat side. Second, NY gets more liberal every election cycle. Many of the squishes in the suburbs are falling away from the GOP and the real conservatives are fleeing to greener pastures (figuratively and literally). Giuliani may not be able to win NY.

Third, we don't need NY! We have won the last two elections without NY. We can keep winnning without NY. Putting NY in play is not important - it's gravy. Would it be nice, it's not like we need it. If we were Democrats and you were telling me we should favor Bill Nelson for president because he puts Florida in play, that would be a reason - the Dems really need to put a big state in play. But we can build on the states we have and win every time just with them (especially since with every census they pick up more EVs). Plus we're on the cusp in places like MN and WI. I'd sooner pick Gov. Pawlenty to insure the upper midwest than Rudy to stab at NY.

Finally, if we're going to pick candidates in order to put a state in play, why not go whole hog and find someone from California? Bush polled better in Cali than in NY in both 2000 (41% in CA, 35% in NY) and 2004 (44% in CA, 40% in NY). Looks like CA is more in play for us already.

I'm not anti-Rudy, but let's make sure we're not falling into an old trap (and one that Dems are now in) of picking someone just because he looks like he has the best chance to win.

It's possible that the Democrats could not have won in 2004. This could be why the Clintons took a pass. But the choice of Sen. Kerry was singularly disastrous, and they made that choice because they thought he was the most electable.

Electablity is (in my opinion) the last reason to select a particular candidate. On the issues Rudy Giuliani seems, at fist glance, to have some negatives per the Republican base. The question to be answered between now and Nov. is whether those negatives outweigh his positives. This process will also answer the related question of which issues are to rule our thoughts and in what order. Having said that, I also find Mr Giuliani persuasive at this time.

All of us are driven by the issues but, I think, not to the point of selecting a suit full of all the right issues with no strength of character to see them through. Perhaps binladen has it right when he says that: "when people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse."

What Guiliani brings to the ticket in the northeast and Great Lakes regions isn't just his Catholicism. It's true, his past positions on some issues may cost him some support he might have gained because of his faith - although being Catholic didn't even win the Catholic vote for John Kerry.

Rudy is of Italian descent. That brings a lot of pride - no one of such lineage has even been nominated by a major party for President, and only the embarassing Geraldine Ferraro has made it to a national ticket in the Veep spot. Other ethnic populations, who have their own histories of discrimination, will also see this as an opening for future candidates with Greek or Polish or Armenian surnames to compete.

If you don't think Guiliani knows how to promote ethnic pride in many nationalities while making them all love him, you missed his eight years in NYC. That puts not only NY, NJ, and CT {all states carried by Reagan in '84, so it's not unheard of} in play, but the entire Great Lakes area as well, including Pennsylvania.

As the linked post from Dave notes, if Rudy outpolled Bush by just 5% in the northeast and Great Lakes states, he would win an extra 54 Electoral votes, and if he ran 5% behind Bush in the south and mountain west, he would lose ZERO EC votes.

To me - and I am a "social conservative" in the sense that I'm pro-life, pro-marriage, and alarmed at the assault on religion in the public square - the biggest question about Rudy is his health. If he can get a clean bill next year, that's a good sign his prostate cancer is gone.

In a close race, as Nader taught us well, a 3rd party candidate can make all the difference, even if he does not garner a large number of votes.

Does not a Rudy nomination almost GUARANTEE a strong social conservative as an independent. Not someone who could win, but someone who could truly take a large number of votes that otherwise would go GOP.

Someone who also does not CARE about the Republican party as a priority - because if the GOP nominated a social liberal, they would not see a dime's worth of difference (like Nader said).

So think Judge Moore from Alabama. Think Alan Keyes. Who knows, even Franklin Graham or James Dobson could come out of the woodwork. Rick Warren? My point is I bet there would be SOMEONE.

Look at how many votes conservative McClintock got in the CA recall race, when everyone knew that Arnold was the only GOP runner with a chance to win. I know a lot of Christians who voted for McClintock, because of Arnold's social liberalism.

Also, I would like to remind us all that the GOTV effort was huge (and needed) in 2004, and it was strongly led by evangelicals. So while there would still be some evangelicals like myself who would not stay home or throw away their vote on a 3rd party (too many men have died for my freedom to vote) - I would not lift one single finger, send one single dollar, put up one single yard sign, or write one single comment on a blog in support of Rudy.

I would quietly show up in November and cast my vote - then go home. I think the GOTV effort would be a fraction of what it was in 2004. So remember that when discussing how many new electoral votes Rudy wins for us.

We still live in a nation where a tremendously large number of eligible voters do not vote. Frankly, the "non-voter" is the one who decides EVERY election (if you know what I mean)

I assure you the Dems will be making sure their folks get to the polls, by hook or by crook.

I'll concede that Guiliani may have been a good mayor. His problem is his negatives turn off too many conservative without atracting any liberals to vote for him. It isn't that conservatives would go and vote for his opponent. No the issue is people just wouldn't turn out enough to overcome Dem vote fraud. In 2004 Bush probably needed 60% of the living voters to end up with 52% of the recorded vote. Guiliani's liberal stances which will lose him conservative votes won't gain him any Dem votes because that will dislike his stance on the war on terror (he wants us to win).