Tom Roeser offers an arresting, apocalyptic view of what would happen if Dems win the WH in ‘08. Context is answering why Giuliani has social conservative support:
[They] may have some questions about Giuliani but they know for positive certain that no matter what Democratic president gets in, the goals of the movement will be certifiably ended-especially with appointments to the Court. There’s not even a question about that. The courts would go Left, national security would go passive, the Islamo-fascists would take heart at seeing the country repudiate the Bush legacy. Domestic terrorist strikes would increase. And something which is quite hard for the Catholic in me to rationalize-the future of Israel which is so close to the evangelical heart would be jeopardized while an ambivalent Hillary or worse yet Hamlet-like Obama would allow things to happen.
Is that grim enough for you?
Blithe Spirit 
Tom Roser’s analysis as to why social conservatives support Rudy is quite good, but I don’t think most of them are tuned sufficiently into the political situation to be able to reflect upon the consequences of a Hillary presidency. It is doubtful whether social conservatives even know much about what Giuliani is all about. From my interactions with people, few really follow the political situation with all of its daily twists and turns. I would wager that most social conservatives support Rudy because he appears strong and confident. Such qualities are deemed essential for a leader, and Repulicans, of all manner, would like to win in Nov. of ’08. Hillary is perceived a threat. Rudy gives the impression that he could take on Hillary and be triumphant. I’m not one who stands with Rudy as a social conservative, but I would vote for him if he were to be the Republican candidate in ’08.
LikeLike