Which Republican for President?

You know my answer for that question, but...

There is a thread over at Red State that asks the question:

One thing I keep asking various friends of mine, who consider themselves Fred supporters, is what does Fred bring to the table, from an electoral perspective?

The one answer that I've gotten, that I believe, is "nothing".

The following was my response to the post:

In 1964, which would you have preferred: losing the Presidency running Goldwater or winning with Rockefeller?

My point is this: It is foolhardy to make your choice for a candidate based on his "electability". If your choice for a candidate takes the party farther from where it should be (e.g. spending on any social program that comes by or supporting socially questionable positions), then you will do long-term damage to the party for the sake of short-term gain.

I personally do not think that Fred is NOT electable. I will have to take some time to look at maps, etc. to answer your basic question. BUT, many, many pundits are panning Fred right now, while he continues to rise in the polls. I don't think the "conventional wisdom" of who he will appeal to is quite given yet.

Pull for who is the right candidate on the positions! I don't think Rudy is that person.

While it took a while, the failed Presidential campaign of Goldwater brought about wonderful change in the Republican party that shaped it for at least 30 years. We have lost our path a bit, but it is time to get back to those roots. FDT is the candidate that brings us back toward that ideal.

I think it would have been wonderful had Goldwater been elected President--we would be living in a different world today. The same thing goes for the 2008 election. Putting forward the right candidate (FDT) will produce good results for the Republican party--win or lose. It will just be better if he wins.