The main argument of the Rudy shills boils down to this: Conservatives are supposed to overlook his numerous character flaws, his enormous personal baggage, and his extreme and obnoxious liberal policies because he'd be tough on terrorism and the world's bad guys. As proof they offer his performance during and after 9/11. The shills make it sound as if Rudy's performance was greater than Churchill's in 1940, when Britain was teetering on the edge and almost went down to Hitler's Germany.
I simply have been asking for specific examples of this "great leadership" during and after 9/11 and still have only the two meager examples that I cited previously. Making speeches and tough rhetoric won't cut it against the terrorists, North Koreans, Iranians, etc., who, I am sure, are tougher and more resilient than the squeegee men of years past.
Imagine if in 1939, the issues that mattered to voters was whether the candidate did or did not hate gays.
The next President will be concerned with 99.99% issues of foreign affairs and war and peace and what leads from those. History will laugh...and cry...at some of you.
Those of us that lived in NYC- with very rare exception- trust that he may be many things but also the right man for the right time. Even if only because no one else comes close.