We should wish, I think, for a Republican cndidate who could actually explain clearly and with conviction what ROE v. WADE and PLANNED PARENTHOOD v. CASEY etc. actually say and why they were wrongly decided. It would be ever better if this candidate could go to explain all that is implied in the very loose, polemical, and evolutionary interpretation of "liberty" in LAWRENCE v. TEXAS. Weve NEVER had such a candidate, and in 2008 the lucid and principled case against judicial activism would be more appealing to the American people than ever. Im too lazy to link to studies, but they show that the young are increasingly pro-life, and that support for the womans unlimited "right to choose" is fading across the board. And of course most Americans dont believe that theres a constitutional right to same-sex marriage enforceable by federal courts.
Giuliani has the brains but not the conviction to make such a case. Romney also has the brains, but his conviction and desire to understand whats really at stake are in question. Brownback has the conviction, but his prudence in general is in question. And his campaign is unlikely to take off anyway.
So what we have here is likely an opportunity missed.