So, you're saying we will die unless Rudy is elected?
Do you really not know how stupid that assertion sounds?
Ever hear of an analogy?
The damage that a Hitlary presidency combined with a Dem Congress will do during a time of war is incalculable.
In my judgment, the tide is going against us, 2006 was just "the first wave", and if we try "more of the same" we will be swamped by the SECOND one.
It behooves us to unite behind the one candidate with the best chance of winning. And unless you are willing to engage in some stupefyingly amazing self-delusion, all the early indicators are that this candidate is Rudy.
Why will he be the best to fight the war on terror? Well, lets see:
A. He has a long history of fearlessly prosecuting the mob, at risk to his own life;
B. He has a long history of having zero-tolerance of crime, and a cleaned up Big Apple to show for it;
C. He was almost KILLED in the Ops Center just underneath Tower I, when it fell on top of that building and they had to run for their lives.
D. He showed tremendous presence of mind, calmness of spirit, and incisive reasoning, not to mention being a Patton-like inspiration to NYC in the aftermath;
E. He personally asked Dubya to be allowed to "throw the switch" if bin Laden was taken alive and sentenced to death (I can't see any of the other candidates doing that, can you?)
He knows how to set out the goals and then give the organization the leeway to run with it (witness the NYPDs clean up of NYC despite the NYT's squealing) - he will use the same tactic in letting the military go and get the terrorists.
And THAT is why Rudy will unquestioningly be THE best of the current crop in fighting the WOT.
Oh, and another thing - with the credibility and respect he has on this issue with the American people, he will be FAR more successful in 'persuading' a Dem Congress to fund the war as it ought to be fought.
Is that enough for you? Or will you now ask me to produce angels dancing on the head of a pin as your final test?