That's my point. There is no Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush for conservatives to rally round.
The GOP though MUST win in 2008. I don't care who it is, but we can't have a Democrat win.
The Gore and Kerry elections show how razor thin the balance is between blue and red.
I think it's analagous to 1968, where the Vietnam war was the major issue, not domestic politics. So we got a very moderate Richard Nixon, who was however brilliant in foreign policy.
Although Reagan ran in 1968, belatedly, I doubt he could have won that year.
Since there isn't a conservative this time who transcends party label like Reagan, it's a different ball game.
Between McCain and Rudy, Rudy is by far the more loyal Republican. Both are hawks against the Islamofascists, but McCain's judgement I think is very questionable. If Rudy could fight the Islamists for one or two terms, the party would find it's next Reagan or Bush while Rudy kept it out of the hands of the Democrats, the thought of which scares me to death on so many levels. At this point in history, NOTHING is more important than fighting the terrorists, and standing up to Iran. No Democrat would do that.
Your post wasn't about the WOT.
Your post addressed there would be retirements in the '08-'12 cycle so it was imperative we get a Republican in there. I rightly informed having a Republican President guarentees nothing about the Courts.
If you want to argue the WOT supercedes the Courts as consideration, that is a fair argument to make, but it wasn't the subject of your first post nor the subject of this thread.