David, regarding your post on Giuliani, I have a few points. It's not that I don't think that social issues will matter in 2008, it's just that I think that national security will be far more important to voters. In 2004, Republicans had no choice but to stick with President Bush as their commander-in-chief. In 2008, in the wake of 9/11, wars in Afghanistan and
Iraq as well as concerns over N. Korea and Iran, Republican voters will have the responsibility of choosing a new wartime leader. You write that "most if not all of the Republican candidates will emphasize their strength on national security." Yeah, I'm sure that all the candidates will talk tough, but Giuliani has an actual record based on his leadership abilities and his performance on 9/11. It's really difficult for me to understand how Mitt Romney, merely by saying the right things, can convince voters that he's fit to be commander-in-chief. Perhaps you're right David that I'm underestimating the importance of social issues, but I think you're mistaken if you believe that merely talking the talk will be enough to satisfy those voters who are basing their decisions primarily on national security. McCain can make a case for himself on national security, but obviously he has a lot of other problems with conservatives.