Rudy Giuliani, whose positions on abortion and homosexuality mark him as the most socially liberal Republican presidential candidate in more than a generation, is so far winning the contest for the support of social conservatives, according to a new analysis of recent polls.

The Politico

I have said for a while now that I think Rudy’s numbers are coming out of fear, from the impression that he is the most electable candidate in 2008 and the GOP’s best chance of holding onto the White House, preventing the Democrats from holding all three branches. I still think his numbers will erode as time goes on, particularly if a certain former Tennessee Senator jumps into the fray.

The Politico would seem to agree with my reasoning:

Widespread perceptions that Giuliani is the most electable Republican in this year’s field are driving his support among social conservatives, according to the analysis by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.

If the trend holds, this apparent willingness to support a candidate who fails what were once regarded as litmus-test issues would mark a landmark shift in the political behavior of a constituency that has been a pillar of the modern GOP. Already the shift is spurring sharp debate among prominent Christian conservative leaders, some of whom warn that Giuliani backers are abandoning core principles.

So says Newt:

Newt Gingrich is one of those who fear that Republicans have been branded with the label of incompetence. He says that the Bush Administration has become a Republican version of the Jimmy Carter Presidency, when nothing seemed to go right. “It’s just gotten steadily worse,” he said. “There was some point during the Iranian hostage crisis, the gasoline rationing, the malaise speech, the sweater, the rabbit”—Gingrich was referring to Carter’s suggestion that Americans wear sweaters rather than turn up their thermostats, and to the “attack” on Carter by what cartoonists quickly portrayed as a “killer rabbit” during a fishing trip—“that there was a morning where the average American went, ‘You know, this really worries me.’ ” He added, “You hire Presidents, at a minimum, to run the country well enough that you don’t have to think about it, and, at a maximum, to draw the country together to meet great challenges you can’t avoid thinking about.” Gingrich continued, “When you have the collapse of the Republican Party, you have an immediate turn toward the Democrats, not because the Democrats are offering anything better, but on a ‘not them’ basis. And if you end up in a 2008 campaign between ‘them’ and ‘not them,’ ‘not them’ is going to win.”

The New Yorker

Pretty hard to argue with that.

There are some pretty heated comments going on over at this RedState post about President Bush’s speech today about immigration in Georgia in which he apparently told the conservative base to shut up and trust the government and further maintained his insistence that we need this new “comprehensive” immigration law (wait, what’s that? He won’t enforce the current laws? Ignore the man behind the curtain).

Anyways, my observance upon reading a lot of these comments was that the “burning the village to save it” mentality seems rampant amongst conservative bloggers (the village being the GOP in its current state). This appears to be the tipping point of Bush’s many transgressions; people could stomach NCLB, budget-busting bills, earmarking out the wazoo, etc, but not this. The discussion over at RedState eerily reminds me of the attitude espoused by the Strikers in “Atlas Shrugged”. Readers of this blog aren’t unfamiliar with this attitude, as we’ve been very harsh on the current direction of the Republican Party and even asked in a recent post, “So what happens if we lose?”

Who is John Galt?

Presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton outlined a broad economic vision Tuesday, saying it’s time to replace an “on your own” society with one based on shared responsibility and prosperity.

The Democratic senator said what the Bush administration touts as an “ownership society” really is an “on your own” society that has widened the gap between rich and poor.

“I prefer a ‘we’re all in it together’ society,” she said. “I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none.”

AP

Shared prosperity? This is the same vision that Stalin, Marx, and Lenin all had too. It’s the same type of government Hugo Chavez is trying to create in Venezuela while he is seizing peoples’ private property. It is the same society that is pushing people to risk their lives on a raft floating to here from Cuba. There is no mistaking what this woman wants and it’s not American freedom.

Directing back to this earlier post, I think there is a lot at stake if we lose.