Your two errors, in my view:
(1) You are neglecting to include Rudy’s crossover appeal in your calculation.
(2) Wanting a future for your kids isn’t ‘political’ or ‘religious.’ It’s instinctual.
What crossover appeal?
Reagan's crossover appeal was largely pro-life and pro-gun Dems. Rudy won't pull those.
And you would have us believe that Rudy, as a pro-war pubbie, can run left to pic up votes even though antiwar sentiment increases dramatically the further left you go in the electorate.
So unless Rudy sells out on the Iraq War, he can't run left. And if he does sell out (and he's given himself an out already for that), then he's just negated your core assertion - that he's the guy to lead the country in a time of war.
You are making an argument with me as to why these people should get out and vote. But I'm not the one suggesting it. That's the way those people are. If you can go convince them, more power to you. Keep in mind though, they don't read FreeRepublic, they don't follow politics and for the most part they don't watch much news.
As for so-called cross over appeal, the only presidential candidate in recent memory to achieve that in a big way was Ronald Reagan. So I'm not sure who is going to be crossing over for pro-abortion, gun grabbing, homo-friendly Rudy, because on those issues the Dmeocrat is always better.
It’s not really crossover when you ask one rather large part of the base to let go of their most important issue.
Rather, it’s thumbing your nose in the face of the pro-lifers.
There are not enough “moderates” to compensate for the pro-lifers who simply will not vote for Rudy.
On top of that, he will absolutely destroy the party on a national level.
If I remember right, you pushed for Jeanine Pirro against Hillary with the same persistence. Remind us of how successful that was.