As a matter of Realpolitik, I often evaluate undesirable politicians as follows: Can conservatives bully this man into doing the right thing, or does he have deep convictions that will resist any bullying? Obviously this is not as good as being in agreement with a politician, but in an imperfect world, it is sometimes the best you can get.
The big problem with Dubya, in general, is that he sincerely and passionately believes in various wrong-headed policies. There is no possibility of bullying him on immigration, for example. Jillions of faxes and emails and phone calls bullied the Congress, but it did not really faze Dubya. Those kind are the scary kind.
So, let’s evaluate the four big GOP candidates in this manner.
Giuliani: Seems sincerely to detest social/moral conservatism. I would not be surprised if a NYC mayor, even one with conservative leanings, remained quite about such issues while mayor, acknowledging that this is simply the kind of city he is governing and it will not change. But no mayor has to dress in drag and march in gay pride parades. His adulteries, pushing Judith on us all, etc., indicate that he is likely to be a splitter of the GOP.
McCain: Delights in angering the GOP base (except when running for President). Gang of 14 founder. Always courting the liberal media. In general, a dangerously unreliable conservative even when he speaks conservatively about an issue. Any attempt by the GOP base to bully him on some issue with gobs of faxes and emails will probably send him to the microphones to proclaim that it is Righteous John vs. the World, and he is standing up to those xenophobes and bigots who keep faxing him, etc., all to the applause of the liberals.
Huckabee: Compassionate Conservative 2.0. True believer in his misinterpretation of the Christian faith. Only hope is that he has already shown that he can be bullied. He has stopped saying the things that scared part of the GOP base early in the campaign, moved right on immigration to a huge degree (just contrast that with Dubya!), dropped the Main Street vs. Wall Street rhetoric that he featured in the Iowa campaign, etc. Still hard to predict how he would govern as President.
Romney: Flip-flops indicate that he knows what he has to do to appeal to the base, and is not such a true believer on any subject that he won’t bend. An exception is legal immigration, particularly H-1B visas for high-tech workers, etc. The corporatist background shining through.
On the whole, it appears that Romney is the least dangerous in terms of being dedicated to opposing the conservative base on any issue, with Huckabee second.
I am reminded of Al Gore. When he was a U.S. senator from Tennessee, he was pro-life. When he became a national figure, he instantly became pro-abortion. Did the Democratic base worry that he would revert to his old, pro-life form? Of course not. They knew that if he was kow-towing to them on this issue he knew the score in the Democratic Party and they need not worry about it again. Conservative voters have experienced so many betrayals over the years that we don’t view such flip-floppers as sanguinely as Democrats do. That is understandable, but, given the alternatives, we might have to take a risk on Romney in 2008.