Yes, Giuliani has problems. It is also funny that the "Willie Horton" issue that was supposed to hurt Huckabee has blown up on Romney.

As Mitt and Rudy get dirty, Huckabee will continue his meteoric rise to the top!

I would not take National Rudy Onlines opinion about anything with respect to this race.

Thompson is looking better all the time.

A nuanced look at the latest studies might suggests that Rudy may be the weakest candidate the Republicans have.

That's always been the case, but a lot of ink has been spilled in an effort to cover it up.

You're dead wrong Peter. And it's not wise to rely upon the evidence of the architect and Bush, who've led the GOP into one disaster after another.

Giuliani should seal the deal by the first week of Feb. The early decision will allow the passions attending his quest for the nomination to subside. And after he seals the deal, others who've opposed him will be left with the sad reflection that they offered no VIABLE alternative. If there was a Reagan out there, then sure, Giuliani's victory would trigger dissension in the ranks. But when his opposition consisted of creatures like the aging Thompson, the unutterably squalid Romney, "Pastor" Huckabee and Ron Paul, then no, there won't be any lasting damage by the selection of Giuliani.

And one thing more, you've often felt free ripping the candidates, ............. and that's your right of course. But it's an exercise in irresponsibility WITHOUT identifying the proper course of action. You've frequently warned us of political disasters if we were to go with Giuliani, then who do you suggest we go with.

WHO DO YOU FAVOUR for the nomination, from this rather limited hand we've been dealt?

It's long past time Peter for you to identify the guy you're backing. And if not Giuliani, then who?

Good question.

I think Peter is entitled to be coy and, since he's teaching a class on elections right now, probably should continue to be coy at least until the end of the semester.

Perhaps Peter hasn't made up his mind. I know I haven't. For me, it's between Romney and Huckabee, though I might throw Thompson back into the mix if he (improbably) catches fire between now and February. If Giuliani is the Republican nominee, I'll likely vote for the ticket he heads in November.

Can't be coy while he's ripping into frontrunners.

That breaks all bargains.

We're WELL into the primary season, and it's decision time.

It's difficult to square Lawler being undecided with the tone of that lead off post. He effectively says Giuliani won't win, because he won't be able to galvanize the passion of the rank and file.

That suggests that the passion in 2000 and 2004 was all about Bush, and not about the GOP platform, and not about Conservatism. I don't agree with that at all. The furor over the Harriet Meirs nomination, and the battle for Alito tells us that there is a great deal of passion for CONSERVATISM, and far less passion for the various personalities in the leadership of the party, and that includes Bush, in fact, it ESPECIALLY INCLUDES Bush.

Once Giuliani's keel is launched, and the superstructure begins to be welded on, the GOP is going to start appreciating the battlewagon they've just selected as their standard bearer for '08.

So I completely disagree with Peter's assessment, and I think it's almost insulting towards the base, for it suggests the Party is more interested in personalities, then they are in ideas.

Just think of the huge ISSUES that are going to be thrashed out in this general election.

Borders, lesser included issues therein are SOVEREIGNTY and CULTURE.

The judiciary.

National security.

Muslim supremacism, which still goes under the misnomer, islamic fundamentalism.

FISCAL restraint.

And those are just some, some of the issues that are going to be thrashed out.

So Peter Lawler severely underestimates the ideological savvy of the rank and file of the GOP, by suggesting they're looking for personalities.

They're far more focused on WINNING the thing, because they're much more aware of what another Clinton in The White House would mean.

Peter, You are good and picking who is conservative but not so hot at American politics. Rudy doesn't need to mobilize a million from the "base", fire up the evangelicals and stoke the fire of the libertarians to win. There isn't a single one of us conservatives, independents, libertarians, true believers in Christianity or Judaism that will not vote for Rudy if he is the nominee. Thinking anything to the contrary is just absurd. What? You think Dobson and crew are going to vote for Hillary or Obama? REALLY? Pro abortion, pro gay marriage, socialist, hedonist, selfish and immature Democrats? REALLY? Not a chance.

Tiger, you are clueless. Of course Dobson and company will not vote for Hillary or Obama. That has NEVER been the suggestion. The question is whether they will vote third party or stay home.

"There isn't a single one of us conservatives ... that will not vote for Rudy if he is the nominee. Thinking anything to the contrary is just absurd."

Well there is at least one.

There isn't a single one of us conservatives, independents, libertarians, true believers in Christianity or Judaism that will not vote for Rudy if he is the nominee.

You seem shockingly ignorant of what conservatives, independents, and libertarians think. Speaking as one, I can tell you that I'll crawl over broken glass to vote for anyone not named Rudolph Giuliani. And I am far from being alone.

These online Giuliani supporters make the Ron Paul people look respectable.

Sanity will return to the base, and they will vote in greater numbers for Giuliani than they voted for Bush.

No way Dan, Bush was a darling of Conservative Christians. You may hate how he governed, but he was an excellent candidate who united our party in November better than any of the current field seems capable of.

In politics you always start with the base (Christian conservatives and small government types in the GOP) and then try to find an issue or two to branch out to in order to appeal to a group of moderates. Bush did that quite effectively. Giuliani seems to think he can win by being a liberal on most issues and throw the base a bone or two. Wrong idea.

Sanity will return to the base, and they will vote in greater numbers for Giuliani than they voted for Bush.

Can you take two minutes out from your relentless Rudy boosterism to suggest any reasons why the base should turn out for a candidate who is indistinguishable from Bill Clinton on every issue?

(I'm pretty sure the answer is "No", but what the heck.)

Yes, Bush was something of a darling in his reelection bid, but not before.

Bush very well may have blown his reelection bid but for that sensational convention, and Senator Zell Miller's once in a lifetime speech. THAT turned things around fast. And Kerry never closed that distance, despite getting closer after Bush's brain dead debate performances.

This party can never again choose a man or a woman who is such an embarrassment as a Bush. And there are few things worse in this existence than watching a Bush deliver a public speech or begin a debate.

And John, assuming arguendo that everything you say is right and that Rudy is "indistinguishable from Bill Clinton on every issue," the base would STILL VOTE FOR HIM, because even if that were the case, he would still be SHARPLY distinguishable from HILLARY!

Sorry fellas, many are trying to hold the GOP hostage, threatening some walkout if Rudy gets the nomination, but it isn't going to happen.

Foolish, stubborn people in our party already delivered us Clinton, delivered us a shellacking in '06, but aren't going to stay home before the prospect of Hillary, with more political power behind her than even LBJ himself.

It's not going to happen guys.

Joe K said: "If Giuliani is the Republican nominee, I'll likely vote for the ticket he heads in November."

I would have guessed that Rudy's ties to terrorists would cause you to strike him off your list.