The only "social conservatives" Rudy will have trouble with are the "single issue voters" who oppose some of his positions on their key issues. Fortunately for him, these are relatively few in number, although you would never know it by the noise they are capable of making.
------------------------------
Well Jim, if you recall to 2000, about 4 million of those social conservatives stayed home, because they were not convinced of Bush's pro-life and other evangelical convictions - in large part to the last minute DUI revelation.

In 2000, after the Clinton stench, restoring character to the White House was a major theme, and for most of those social conservatives, it hasn't gone away - most of us think think twice before voting in another adulterous individual.

Abortion is certainly a single-issue for many, but you couple it with areas like homosexual issues, and you start creating a picture far beyond the 'single-issue'

Rudy's strategy here may actually backfire, because most social conservatives are not pacified with discussion of 'mammon'

Vote for me, because I will keep your taxes low, even if I continue to support the murder of millions in the womb and the teaching of virutes of homosexuality to your 2nd graders.

Your point is well made that the several issues might combine. A lot depends upon how Rudy deals with the gun issue - which isn't necessarily a "social conservative" area, though.

I hope those who stayed home in 2000 and came within a gnat's eyelash of putting Al Gore in the White House learned a lesson. Will they stay home if Rudy is the GOP nominee against Hillary, Obama, or Edwards?

It's a lot like cutting off your nose to spite your face. Of course, all this presupposes Rudy is the nominee, and that's a long way off. Of the announced, probable, and possible candidates, though, only Gingrich has credibility on all these issues and any level of support, and he is most certainly unelectable in a general election.

Republicans tend to nominate their frontrunners, as the next post up will show.

Jim, one more thing you have to understand - while you and I would never stay at home, and are perfectly comfortable voting for the 'lesser of two evils' (and in CA I face that often) - many, if not most social conservatives do NOT think that way.

I truly understand and respect the view of my fellow conservatives who believe it is wrong to ever vote for a candidate that supports the taking of innocent life in the womb. They do NOT equate their staying home as a 'vote for Hillary (or whoever).'

As a devout Christian myself, I view the vote as one of stewardship - a privilege few have been offered over the history of mankind, and one that many have shed blood and died for me to have today.

I have, quite reluctantly, voted for candidates I despise, simply because SOMEONE would have that office, and to stay home in my convictions is an affront to those who died before me. If the Lord disagrees with that stance, I will find out someday, and salvation is (fortunately) not based on whether my view, or the 'stay at home' view is correct in His eyes.

I say all that because I think we make a mistake in shouting 'would you rather have Hillary?' in response to such convictions.

By the way, the 1992 defeat led to a tremendous victory for conservatives just two years later (which we slowly squandered away over the years until last November). I do not advocate the 'gain by losing elections' strategy - but I do recognize that to the non-political junkies among us, it is not the end of the world for them if the Democrat wins, when the Republican does not differ much on key issues. (And taxes are not key issues to these voters typically - at least not in comparison)

I should also add that the stewardship angle is also why I would never vote for a 3rd party candidate who had no hope of winning.

So I won't stay home, and I won't toss my vote away to some Freedom party.

However, if there was a 'Perot' like 3rd party candidate, one with a semi-legitimate chance, he would get my vote - if he was the alternative for social conservatives (like Perot was for economic conservatives in 1992) and the alternatives were Rudy or the Democrat. Even if he was a longshot.

Steve in Corona.... I do not disagree with you.
However, the survival of the country is at stake. NO Demoncrat will protect us. Rudy probably will. NOTHING ELSE MATTERS.

As I posted here, I think we might be watching the start of a 'Rudy Revolution'.

I understand that most social conservatives would be disappointed if the GOP nominated a candidate who was in any degree pro-choice. I just think the number of them who would stay home for that reason is not so great.

After all, the President most ardently pro-life was Ronald Reagan, but he failed to stop any abortions. It's not an issue the President can affect - perhaps he could sign a partial-birth abortion ban (I believe Rudy said he would), but with the Senate as presently constituted, no such bill will be presented to the next President.

Similarly, there isn't much a President can do about gay marriage or the Second Amendment.

With a fanatical enemy of our way of life spreading its Cult of Death across large sections of the earth, including into the Western democracies, Chinese Communism beginning to crack at home even as they crave military influence abroad, Iran working feverishly towards obtaining nuclear weapons, health care costs continuing to rise dramatically, and all the other crises, problems, and challenges facing our nation, sitting out an election because neither major candidate agrees with us on the issue we consider most important borders on irresponsibility, IMO.

As Gary's linked post shows, social conservatives are giving Rudy a listen, and liking what they hear - except on those issues where he respectfully disagrees. Hey, he could pander to us and change his positions, or he could be like many candidates who talk the talk but get nothing done. He isn't doing those things, he is being open and direct with us about it.

That counts for a lot. McCain is failing fast. The "conservative" challenge to Rudy will be Romney or Gingrich, most likely.

sorry, guys. the hard core holy roillers will not let him get the nomination. what's gonna ha[[en when the pictures of rudy prancing around in drag get out? living with a gay couple? having notorious affairs? i find it seriously hard to beleive that the hard core holier than thou sector of the electorate is going to go for this.

as for him protecting us, i doubt it.