Well, I just finished Kate O'Beirne's hit piece on Rudy Giuliani in National Review (the one with the Rudy in drag cover). I'd been looking forward to a well-reasoned refutation of those Rudy optimists among us. I may be of the mind that Rudy has a good shot in the Republican primary -- but I also think there's a good case to be made to the opposite effect. The O'Beirne piece isn't it.

For those who don't have access to National Review's print edition, all the piece does is trot out the old standbys:

1) Polls are meaningless: All the love for Rudy will evaporate on contact with sunlight.

2) Rudy is a liberal: Surprisingly enough, the mayor of New York City has done and said some liberal things.

3) Rudy's divorced twice, married thrice: It was messy.

The only discernible new reporting (remember reporting?): A couple of calls to political strategists spouting the CW, one of whom is working in a competitor's camp (What are the odds said camp is not Camp McCain?). What does that gentleman have to say? Well, I'll let the NR piece tell it:

Analysts west of the Hudson see little chance that Giuliani will get the nomination. When asked why not, one veteran strategist in a competitor's camp laughingly answers, "God, guns, and gays," and -- as though to drive the point home to Giuliani, who is a devoted Yankees fan -- adds, "Three strikes, you're out." Like others, the strategist concedes that the public's 9/11 image of Giuliani transcends partisan politics, but argues that the image won't last in a heated primary battle.

Yes, by all means, let's keep the GOP the party of God, guns and gays. This will win the Republican Party elections unto infinity -- despite the fact that national security is the only reason we held on in 2002 and 2004.

Now, I've got no problem with God or guns (I've got no problem with gays either -- though, as a good conservative I guess under this formulation I'm supposed to). But is this really all it means to be a Republican anymore? What of small government? What of entitlement reform? What of aggressive energy exploration?

I know these are all harder issues to sell. But is the only purpose of supporting Republicans to expand Medicare recklessly and make sure the flag-burning amendment gets a vote every couple years?

Well, anyway, enough with that rant. There may be a very convincing case to be made against Rudy's viability (not his inevitability, mind you, just his viability). But this wasn't it.