Replies

I agree with you both.
Rudy is, perhaps, the best person of either party to prosecute the War on Terror, the determinative issue of our time.
Rudy is tough. He is experienced. He is bright. He is eloquent. And he has the confidence of most of America. (And wouldn't he automatically get New York?)
And unlike the poseurs in DC, when Rudy is a conservative is a conservative in deed:

His record as mayor of New York City—which one can plausibly argue is a job equal to being the governor of most states—remains the most extraordinary example of active conservative governance at the local level in the past 75 years. He is not a Washington candidate, which means he can separate himself from the congressional party's excesses and hijinks. Most important, he spent eight years as a liberal-slayer in New York, taking on every major institution, refusing to kowtow to the New York Times and the liberal media, and getting so much done that the city is still reveling in the revival for which he was almost solely responsible.
Kathryn Jean Lopez interviews John Podhoretz
National Review Online
May 09, 2006, 6:13 a.m.

The Democrats generally, and the clintons, in particular, are deadly dangerous, especially now. They cannot be trusted with our national security.
We must focus on defeating the terrorists. The War on Terror and the "RINO" assault are separate problems often with conflicting solutions.
(And, in any case, the root cause of what we call the RINO problem isn't the RINO: It is the professional pol. To belatedly focus on the RINO doesn't fix that problem and only undermines our war effort, i.e., in order to "show 'em," some of us are willing to put the proximate cause of 9/11--the clintons--back in the Oval Office.)
By conflating the two problems, we would be all but ensuring that we will solve neither. We would be playing right into the clintons' hand.
Let's get a little perspective here and put these two issues in descending order of--if not priority--expected mortality endpoints.

What's black and white and read all over and is more self-destructive than pre-9/11 thinking?
Pre-clinton thinking, that's what....
Putting doctrinal purity ahead of making sure a defective and dangerous clinton never again controls this country is pre-clinton thinking.
We no longer have the luxury of time or circumstance to massage our sensibilities, to indulge our indignations.
We will not survive another clinton. (We may yet not survive the first one.)

STOPPING HILLARY
[JOHN PODHORETZ'S CRITICALLY IMPORTANT MESSAGE (and it's not his 'HILLARY IS A BITCH' THEORY OF ELECTABILITY)]

THE ABSURDITY OF THE 'HILLARY IS A BITCH' THEORY OF ELECTABILITY
AND OTHER PODHORETZ NONSENSE
NOTE: Podhoretz is absolutely right about one thing--
even hillary clinton can win if the Right FRACTURES over its pet issues.
We must not, in this Age of Terror, allow another Perot or Perot-surrogate issue
elect a defective and dangerous clinton by a plurality. (Nor must we allow either to defeat us in '06.)

WHY THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT MUST MOBILIZE AGAINST HILLARY:
CLINTON CONFLATES EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS AND ISLAMO-FASCIST TERRORISTS

AFTERWORD: A Note to the Religious Right