My point is, those conservatives who believe you must always vote for the most conservative candidate usually don't win general elections. Reagan was the exception in 1980. Nixon in '68, Ford beat out Reagan in '76, GHWB and GWB were NOT the most conservative candidates out there at the time. So conservatives must have voted for the lesser of two evils, so to speak, in the general election. The same should hold true if Rudy is in the general election.
Save that argument for the general election then.
All of the candidates you and I mention are far to the right of Rudy. No Republican dreamed of supporting abortion or gay marriage in those days. GHWB got elected entirely on Reagan's coattails, after acting loyal as VP, then got in bed with the Demonrat Congress (as RINOs usually do) and screwed us all. The point is, if you want to elect a Republican, and have it actually make a difference to the history of the country and the fate of the world, then choose the closest thing to another Reagan, not another Bush, Romney, Ford, Rudy, etc.
" Nixon in '68, Ford beat out Reagan in '76, GHWB and GWB were NOT the most conservative candidates out there at the time"
Nixon was the most conservative-SOUNDING Rep. candidate in 1968; he sounded just like Goldwater in '64. That's how he won the nomination. Then he did win the general election.
Ford beat Reagan because all the RINOs, negativists, and country-club amoralists assured us Reagan couldn't win. Ford LOST the general election, which gave us Carter, which gave us Islamofascist Iran, soon to have nukes.
GHWB won his first election, running on Reagan's record. Next time out, running more as his Eastern RINO "bipartisan consensus" self, he lost to Clinton, who then bequeathed us al Qaeda, the rise of China, and scandals aplenty.
So tell me now: Just how does choosing RINO candidates help national security and win national elections?