GOP leader a long shot for nomination?

David Limbaugh:

For the longest time I have believed -- and continue to believe -- Republicans will not nominate a social liberal as their presidential candidate, but even more so that if they do, they will severely handicap themselves in the general election.

The Washington Times reports that some Republican Party officials are concerned their party is drifting away from social conservatism in anticipation of the 2008 election. One RNC member said, in effect, that it would be electoral suicide for the GOP to nominate a pro-choice and pro-homosexual marriage presidential candidate.

Another member (not surprisingly, from the Northeast), said the party is drifting away from social conservatism but seemed to be pleased with the development. Robert Manning said, "There's an awareness among the national committee that the issues which are of dominant importance to a broad section of voters are tending toward national security and economics and less the social-religious issues that were dominant in prior campaigns."

But Manning's money quote was, "If the party has its headlights on, it responds to issues that concern a majority of voters. That's how you craft successful platforms, and that's what candidates build successful candidacies around."

Manning, like most GOP "moderates," is promoting the exact wrong formula for GOP electoral success. A vibrant, contagious, successful GOP is not reactive, as Manning suggests, nor a dog that allows itself to be wagged by its tail.

...

I think Giuliani is leading the Republican field in spite of his liberal positions on social issues and not because of them. However, in this election it appears that his position on other issues such as winning the war and on taxes trump the negative of his position on social issues. Rudy has also done a good job of suggesting that his positions on those issues will not be a high priority.

He has made the right statements on judges which can have the most effect on social issues. Most of all he has been the most articulate spokesman for winning the war that is being waged against us by the Islamic religious bigots. His statement that the Democrats will put us on defense in the war is brilliant, because it actually puts them on the defensive about their positions they have staked out such as an ill advised retreat from Iraq.

While I don't agree with him on the social issues, I would have no difficulty in supporting him against any Democrat that might be nominated. It is clear to me that any Democrat would be worse on the social issues, not to mention how disastrous they would be in waging the war effort. The Republican candidates who are strong on the social issues have not been able to stir Republican voters so far, which suggest they would do much worse in a general election. Whether Fred Thompson might be able to seize the mantle is very unclear at this point. He is going to have to demonstrate some leadership skills to go along with his positions.