It fits, though. They keep doing the same thing over and over and somehow expect different results. (One definition of stupid, imho).
What worked in New York might well bring open revolt in the hinterlands. Lest Republicans forget, the "Assault Weapons Ban" brought the Democrats down and put the Republicans into power, pehaps more than any other single issue. Abortion was a definite contributing issue as well. "Gay Marriage" was not even on the radar.
Alienate the base on these issues and they will sit it out, vote third party, or only grudgingly vote "Republican".
The big reason the Republicans 'scored' was that there was a clear, conservative difference between them and the liberal Democrats. If the Republicans run a liberal, they lose the difference, and frankly, with the some of the crap the Congress has pulled, as well as what they have not done, that distinction is fading and tattered badly enough already.
Of course, the MSM will tout these liberals (Rudy, Mc Cain) as the "moderate" front-runners. It is only to their party's advantage to ballyhoo from the rooftops that these losers are the hot new Republican candidate pool.
Rudy did great for New York, at least New Yorkers were satisfied. Fine. But that is only one small part of America, despite the egocentrism of its inhabitants, and what is 'right' for them just does not fit elsewhere. Consider New York lost more policemen on 9/11 than many flyover counties have, (state, local and sherrif's deputies), and you begin to get an inkling of the differences, and why the RKBA is a lynchpin issue.
Ah yes, the old "don't alienate the base" shtick.
Process this: if the GOP manged to front a candidate that appealed to the decisive "swing voters" in greater numbers, the "base" won't mean diddly squat. At this point, "the base" (funny, but isn't that what Al' Qaeda translates to in Arabic?) only counts because it a) has the money and b) controls the majority of super-delegates in most state primaries.
That's why their so instrumental in getting a candidate over the hump, but their pet peeves get so woefully ignored after the election is over, making them bitter and vengeful.
Pragmatism is a word that is simply not in their vocabulary. The concept litterally ties them up in mental knots. The sad fact is that at this point in time, the GOP must be more pragmatic and less beholden to narrower interests. Pushing the pro-life agenda, the Second Amendment crusade and a host of other issues simply will not garner votes for the GOP when the country has bigger fish to fry (like 150,000 Americans in Iraq for the foreseeable future, Islamofascism, growing trade deficits with our next enemy (China), an economy which hums but in which the vast majority of the money and opportunity is not finding it's way to the people who created it (the Middle Class), and illegal immigration). We're up against a new set of priorities here. In that light, it behooves the party to take a look at candidates from all over the republican spectrum. That includes Giuliani.
So, fine. Take your ball and go home. Walk away from the republican party and see if you ever, ever have any influence on American politics again (which is when all them guns the Fed'ral Gub'mint and Rudy G grabbed from you would have come in handy, right?)