Reagan Democrats left the Democratic Party BECAUSE of issues such as Dem support for abortion and gay rights (and gun control). These liberal social issues caused Reagan Democrats to ignore their union/white ethnic/Catholic traditional loyalties to the party of FDR (when it became seen as the party of George McGovern and Jimmy Carter and Coleman Young).

And Thompson was a Senator for 8 years, not 6.

Times have changed a bit since 1976 and Reagan's first run for the presidency.  Whether social conservatives care to admit it or not, the overall prevailing attitude among the public concerning gays and abortion has moderated significantly.  While many within the GOP may not embrace Mary Cheney, her child, or her partner, most don't want to see her discriminated against either.

The point is, Giuliani's pledge to appoint strict constructionists to the court means you'll get a Judge Roberts out of him for the Supreme Court but won't get to enjoy watching him throw red meat to the social conservatives pitting straights against gays.  Personally, I don't think that's a bad thing.

A lot of people held their nose on immigration because Bush was pro-life and really had a sense of where his base was on values.  I can see a lot of these voters going third party or not voting at all - and not volunteering - if the nominee is Rudy.  It will be like Bouchard vs Butler all over again - except they aren't going to pull the level for the Republican in the general.  

I really don't know who I'd vote for if Rudy was the nominee - however, strong on terror only gets you part of the way with me.  

I don't expect to agree with the nominee on every single thing, but considering 1) NYC was/is considered a sanctuary city for illegals, 2) Rudy's not know for supporting gun rights/ownership 3) He's not exactly a "pro-lifer" either - as much as he wants to spin it.

Those are red flags for me.  Judges are important, but looking at his track record I'm not convinced he would represent me and my values very well.  

I know that we aren't voting for "pastor-in-chief", but why would you vote for a liberal republican when you can vote for the real democrat?  I'm just not interested in voting for a faux conservative.  

Rudy's a leader in his own right which is really attractive, but again, looking at the issues - he's not my guy.  Shoot - I don't even care that he was married three times because my dad was as well, but it's the package - not just one or two things - that I don't like and rubs me the wrong way.  

Also, Hillary, wife of the impeached former President Bill Clinton, has a ton of disadvantages and lot of people don't want to spend another 8 years rehashing the Clinton years.  And the idea of Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton is enough to make anyone sick to their stomach.  Even when people talk about Jeb for VP - I just groan and shake my head and think this person must not get out of the house often.

This idea that none of our candidates can beat Hillary is giving her way too much credit.  She's got a good spin machine, but machines don't vote.  People do.

I love the talk about Guliani being "strong on terror". Give one example of where Guliani has held any position where he could demonstrate he's "strong on terror". He's strong on cheap talk but he has zero experience in that area. Good to go with the nominee who lacks the credentials.

Each of the Democrat candidates wants to throw hot air about being strong against terrorism... and yet your quote fits every single Democrat running right now... Obviously, hot air is okay to Democrats.

This same quote fits John Edwards?  Check.  

This same quote fits Barack Obama?  Check.  Not a lot of command experience in the Illinois Senate.

This same quote fits the crook Hillary Clinton?  Check.  Armed Forces committee aside, she's going to play her version of "I voted for the war before I voted against it."  Wishy-Washy with Botox.  And besides, her impeached crook husband was so strong on terrorism, he let Osama bin Ladin get away with 4 acts of terrorism.  Mmm.  Strong!

This same quote fits Alien Kucinich?  Check.  Is there anything Dennis Kucinich is really qualified to do?

Who among the Democrats does this not apply to?  Oh yeah, Sgt. Kerry's Purple Heart Club Band.  But he's not running this time.

We're not there yet, but by February 6 the question will become, "Will social conservatives turn out in support of their party's nominee on November 4?"

The real issue is whether we want to keep the White House or not?  You agree with Rudy on at least 80% of the issues and should feel comforted by his pledge to exclusively appoint strict constructionists to the courts.

You're going to sit out the general election because of righteous indignation?  If you can't have a clone of yourself on the ticket, you're not going to support the candidate closest to your views?  You're going to let an extreme leftist become our Commander in Chief?  You're going to let BILL CLINTON back into the White House for 4 to 8 years?

If you answered "yes" to any or all of those questions, you need to seek therapy now.

"the rest of the nominees [sic], save Mr. Giuliani, aren't worth mentioning"?  

I double checked my dictionary and this is the plural spelling of "nominee".  I'm also fairly certain it was grammatically correct.

But I could be wrong.  I'm not an English major.

Please clarify your correction so I can learn from it.

Thanks.

That's something you don't hear too many Republicans talking about any more - closing down the Department of Education.  We had a Republican President and controlled House and Senate.  Did one department or liberal program get shut down?  No.  Not even Public Broadcasting.  Good grief!  What's the point of winning elections if you can't implement the most fundamental aspects of good governance?

The federal government has absolutely NO business sticking its nose into the education system.  No Child Left Behind is a failed government bureaucracy that implements a one-size-fits-all approach that proves or solves nothing.  Kill it now.

Leave it to the states, localities, parents, and teachers.

The real problem with our education system is parents who consider their child's school a glorified daycare center.  Until they begin to care enough about their kid's education to demand excellence - both from their children and their school system - public education will continue to be a disaster.

But that's just my opinion.  I could be wrong.

For example, 1000 new jobs in Michigan - Granholm takes credit for it.  Thousands of jobs leaving because of Delphi, etc. etc... John Engler, GWB, Dick DeVos, Mike Bishop, Craig DeRoche, and Saul Anuzis's faults.