1-Put hillary in office and all of our children will be at risk, the born and unborn alike.
2-The abortion issue will soon be mooted by medical science. (I wrote a piece on this a few months ago as did Tony Blankley.)
3-Notwithstanding, Bush's nominations to the court may very well achieve a majority position, thereby rendering the next president somewhat less important in this area.
Consider this hypothetical: Bush has the opportunity to replace Ginsburg, Souter, Breyer, Kennedy and Stevens. With 7 Justices replaced by Bush, would you then be willing to concede that this changes the dynamic as regards the ideology of a president?
4-Your definition of a capable leader seems to be by definition someone with narrow appeal. I suspect you are generalizing from Reagan. Reagan was sui generis. I agree with the author of the article, above, from Townhall.com. Because of the demonization of Bush, the demagoguery, the electorate will never go for a right-wing ideologue.
5-I agree with you on a theoretical level: a lot of people can beat hillary. I am about to post a clip in which maureen dowd and chris matthews literally tear the hillary candidacy apart. Matthews says that Pee Wee Herman would give hillary a race!
But in real life, only someone with the same degree of celebrity and power can compete with the clinton machine.
People like you said that about Arnold Schwarzenegger and what did we get? The most liberal non-Republican ever to claim to be Republican. More than half of his key appointments are not just Democrats but activist leftists. He has taken his administration policy on a leftward tilt worse that Gray Davis ever did. Moreover his so-called star appeal has proven useless in governing.
4-Your definition of a capable leader seems to be by definition someone with narrow appeal.
Your belief that conservative policies have narrow appeal is unfounded and demonstrably incorrect. I am sorry you feel the need to run from basic conservative principals.
The most important thing you are ignoring is voter motivation and turnout. It is a myth that the same bunch of people show up at the polls each time and calculate strategically which candidate is best for them. That only happens among political hacks.
There is vast majority in this country who may be registered with a party but don't consider themselves political or hold any loyalties to a party. They may or may not even show up. Politics is simply not a big part of their lives. Most of them are very conservative in their gut instincts. A lot of them are devoutly religious. The way to get them motivated is to nominate a candidate they AGREE WITH. Elections swing not on people changing their minds about who to vote for, but on WHICH people decide to show up or not show up.
When you put someone as liberal as Rudy on the ballot they are faced with choosing between Hillary and almost-Hillary. It's not a tantrum or a protest, as many liberal Republicans suggest, it is simply a lack of interest. "It doesn't matter what I do." Don't lecture me why that's a bad way of thinking (as moderates always do when I explain this dynamic) because I do vote every time. The only way to get those people up and out to the polls is to nominate someone with appeal.
You watch and read too much in the mainstream media. Conservatism and conservative candidates are not the pariah you think they are.