James Dobson of Focus on the Family penned an op-ed for the New York Times today, stating in no uncertain terms that Rudy Giuliani would be an unacceptable choice for the religious right in 2008:

After two hours of deliberation, we voted on a resolution that can be summarized as follows: If neither of the two major political parties nominates an individual who pledges himself or herself to the sanctity of human life, we will join others in voting for a minor-party candidate. Those agreeing with the proposition were invited to stand. The result was almost unanimous.

What happens if a third party runs against Giuliani? Rasmussen has the answer:

The poll finds that 27% of Republican voters would rather vote for a third-party Christian right candidate in a general election than vote for Rudy Giuliani — and that’s in a three-way race with Hillary Clinton.The hypothetical three-way race shows Hillary with 46% support, Rudy at 30%, and the third-party conservative with 14%. Among self-described pro-life voters, Rudy gets only 36% support, with the third-party candidate at 29% and Hillary with 23%. Not just that, but Rudy gets only 25% of pro-choice voters, with Hillary still walking away comfortably with 65%.”

Then you’ve got polling that shows very real signs that the “Hillary is poison in red states” theory is simply a myth - (and yeah, Edwards looks even better in those polls - a lead in Oklahoma?) and the hero of the conservative movement getting stuck back when Bush the Elder was President. (Seriously, the Soviet Union? Thompson basically oozes incompetence just based on that one statement - and that’s before you look at the rest of his foreign policy). Then you have the Log Cabin Republicans “endorsing” Mitt Romney with a clever ad. We’re going to see an interesting campaign season. And that’s before we even talk about Nebraska Republicans tearing each other apart.

(h/t MyDD)