I know what a non-sequitor means—but do you? It means literally, “not following.” In other words your premise is faulty when you say Rudy betrayed his wife and THEREFORE it follows he would betray his country. That’s a ridiculous idea. For one thing, you’d have to know the circumstances of that betrayal. People close to Rudy know about the rough time he had with Hanover—how she sought to undermine him politically and in every other way. None of this has anything whatsoever to do with how he would lead this country.
Ironically, one of the hallmarks of Rudy’s character is his honesty about public issues. To call him dishonest because of his marital problems is ridiculous.
Correction: McCain received 40% of the S.C. primary vote in general. He received a surprisingly high number of evangelical votes—something like 29%—but Huckabee was slightly higher with them. My error.
Denial is not refutation, and gratuitous assertion is not an argument. For someone with pretentions to logic, yours is a mighty shakey position.
If there is anything Rudy’s wife could do to him that would justify cheating instead of tossing her out, you have a tough case to make showing he would resign before betraying his constituency.