"Ain't that the truth."
Unless of course, they are also interested in national survival (WOT), and believe that Rudy will appoint conservative judges.
BTW, Nino fan - I had the great pleasure to meet and discuss Constitutional law with both Judge Bork and then Judge Scalia at the 1985 Federalist Convention in DC. Its a tragedy that Bork was kept off the bench due to 'Rat character assassination. How the decisions might have gone differently had he, and not Kennedy, been there since 1987....
The only Republican candidate who is really unacceptable in terms of the WOT is Ron Paul. McCain would also be pretty bad in that area. The rest, however, have given us no reason to think that they wouldn't be as good or better than Rudy. I do NOT believe that Rudy is some great war leader, as he has no experience in the area. Cleaning up after a terrorist attack does not equal foreign policy experience. There's no real reason for me to support him on that front.
Furthermore, there is no reason to think Rudy will be good on judges. Who he thinks is a good judge and who I think is a good judge are two very different things. We know that even the farthest left liberals sometimes make claims to appoint "strict constructionists".
Let's say though that we take Rudy at his word. Even "strict constructionists" in the way we use the term today are not in the mold of Scalia or Thomas. They are both originalists. There is a significant difference. I'm not sure Bork would label himself a "strict constructionist" if he were big in the movement today. The legal world has changed thanks to Scalia and Thomas.