That seems to be what Rudy is suggesting. I’ve heard this siren call before: let’s just put the social issues aside and work on what’s really important and not let them divide us:

Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani warned GOP activists in Des Moines on Saturday that if they insist on a nominee who always agrees with them, it will spell defeat in 2008.
“Our party is going to grow, and we are going to win in 2008 if we are a party characterized by what we’re for, not if we’re a party that’s known for what we’re against,” the former New York mayor said at a midday campaign stop.
Republicans can win, he said, if they nominate a candidate committed to the fight against terrorism and high taxes, rather than a pure social conservative.
“Our party has to get beyond issues like that,” Giuliani said, a reference to abortion rights, which he supports.
Giuliani made his remarks at a campaign stop before a speech to about 1,000 of the leadoff caucus state’s most active Republicans, some of whom have voiced unease about his moderate social positions.

But it’s unnecessary in this case, why should I throw away my principles and convictions to vote for Rudy when there are others in the race who share the same convictions and principles as I do and who are electable. What makes him think that a conservative candidate isn’t electable?
I don’t think the social conservative issues need to be the focus of this race but it probably will be if Rudy or Romney are the Republican candidate. The MSM will keep bringing it up all the time (Romney is a social conservative flip-flopper and Rudy is too liberal for the base — this will be the mantra of the MSM throughout the general election). If Thompson were our candidate, then this issue would be settled and he could focus on the issues that need to be addressed: the economy and the war. That is were the focus should be in 2008: war, economy and nothing else (though, he will need to mention how important the judges are in this election cycle). Our candidate needs to drive home the fact that under the Democrats our economy will tank (tax cuts will expire in 2010) and we will cut and run from the war on terror (which the Democrats have renamed, btw). That should be the mantra of this election. Underscore that they renamed the war, wouldn’t fund it (both Iraq and Afganistan) for political purposes and that they want to create a Department of Peace (here are a list of co-sponsors — not a single Republican). They haven’t a clue how to fight this war and we need to make sure the public realizes that. And a message of smaller, smarter government wins every time it’s tried.