The American Spectator

Larry, from that point of view, he probably won’t hurt me. But by that standard, neither would just about any president who promised not to raise taxes. If you throw in constructionist judges (and there is room for improvement over Bush on the lower courts), that is a bonus. But there are still many social areas besides the courts in which I would want a more reliable guy in the office.

Philip, you are correct that Giuliani has the best stripes on national security. I would say he bests McCain in light of McCain’s torture resolution. So if national security is your trump issue, then Giuliani is your guy.

As for Romney’s flip-flopping, I am not sure what to make of it. For me, it could be sincere. I believe people can change for the better, and I hope this is a case of that. Flip-flopping has a bad rap. If it is strictly for political purposes, it is dishonest and cynical. If it is honest, and for the better, wonderful. Politically speaking, Romney may be able to convince enough pro-lifers that his change is sincere.

The fuss over “electability” is an interesting question. You have a lot of bluffers out there. Many will write that one candidate doesn’t have a shot because they like another candidate. Control the conversation, and psyche the opponent out.

The flip side is that electability is a legitimate discussion. Giuliani makes a great mayoral candidate in NYC. What about the country? Who knows? But sheer boosterism by Giuliani partisans is not convincing. Not only do I need to be convinced that Giuliani is the right guy, but I need to be convinced that he can get to the finish line. When boosters do not honestly consider a candidate’s weaknesses as well as his strengths, sometime about the support seems contrived. So… how will Giuliani answer for his greatest liabilities in a Republican primary?