The Virginia Tech events may keep this out of the 24-hour news cycle...
"...Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani warned GOP activists in Des Moines on Saturday that if they insist on a nominee who always agrees with them, it will spell defeat in 2008.
“Our party is going to grow, and we are going to win in 2008 if we are a party characterized by what we’re for, not if we’re a party that’s known for what we’re against,” the former New York mayor said at a midday campaign stop.
Republicans can win, he said, if they nominate a candidate committed to the fight against terrorism and high taxes, rather than a pure social conservative.
“Our party has to get beyond issues like that,” Giuliani said, a reference to abortion rights, which he supports..." (source)
Where do I even start with all the problems I have with this...? He's basically telling conservatives to stop being conservative. He's saying we have to be known for being "for" things instead of against things. If you are FOR anything...doesn't that always mean you'll be AGAINST something else? Is it just me or is that the most inane statement of the campaign season. We don't need a candidate that always agrees with us, but one that has our back more than 30% of the time would be nice...
Rudy doesn't get it that it isn't just the social issues at play here (for me anyway). It's his own life and the flap with the NYFD didn't help what was already an iffy candidacy.
There was a comment under this article that stood out:
"The Democrats won last year because we put expediency in the form of governing by poll numbers ahead of sticking to our beliefs."
I did that once (Arlen Specter) and I won't do it again...