I expected the idea to be brought up that I’m just disappointed with Giuliani because he’s losing. I’d only note that, despite the perception that I’m some big Giuliani booster (I’ve never endorsed. I’m not sure that’s something I have any interest in doing.), I’ve been highly critical of the Giuliani campaign since at least last spring when he flip-flopped on civil unions. I’ve also been critical of his immigration pandering and his ugly War on Terror mongering. I was a believer in the late-state strategy; maybe that seems foolish now, but as I argued in today’s column, it was, at the very least, the best strategy available.

As to the usual charge that any argument for a socially moderate, fiscally conservative GOP (or GOP candidate) is just asking for a candidate who pleases me — well, yes, that is what most people in politics are after. The specific argument as re Rudy, however, is that he wasn’t going to win the Pat Buchanan / Mike Huckabee / Mitt Romney (version 2.0) part of the GOP base. He had to be the moderate-acceptable-to-die-hards. That is, he had to be McCain, but better (I’d argue much better, given my antipathy for McCain).

How that boils down to “He alienated Ryan Sager,” in Ramesh’s words, is beyond me. McCain’s alienated me, too, but he might actually win. Maybe Rudy could never have knocked off McCain in New Hampshire — they just love the old coot too much up there in the Granite State. But he certainly did himself no favors by failing to even fight for the ground that ought to have been his.