We even have Rudy boosters coming into this thread to help us with our study! I wasn't going to get into deception-type talking points for several chapters, but since you gave a good example of such here, I'll address it.
Social conservatives are well aware of that detail. The larger point is, for the Family Republicanae to prevail in elections, it needs to keep all the various species from wandering elsewhere and needs to attract species from Democratus and Independiae, such as Catholicae prolifeus and Ruralus gunnutteri. But the pro-choice and pro-gun talking points of the Rudy boosters have already been shown in the field to actually drive those species deeper into the historical range of Democratus.
OK, who amongst the "family" did NOT turn out in 2004? In 2004, the socon base delivered to the max - 80/20 Bush and a record turnout. Did we win 45 states? no, we won by 65000 votes (swing) in Ohio.
so who didn't vote for us in 2004? In other words, show me a candidate that can max the socon base like Bush did in 2004, AND get some more votes amongst the other "family" members that Bush could not get. why do I say "more" votes? Because we are going to have to do better then 2004 - trends are showing we are going to do worse in 2008 amongst Hispanics and Generation Y voters. We've got to make that up someplace. Where do we go? Is there some candidate that can get 90/10 white evangelicals? I don't know. OK, we'll pick up more generic white male voters who would not vote for Shrillary (few men will vote for a woman who reminds them of their nagging wife), I give you that. But we are also going to see a higher turnout amongst single young women who think its "chic" to elect the first woman president. And I also think Hillary is going to shift the "Oprah" voting block - married suburban independent women - slightly more in her favor.
So let's forget the specific candidates for a moment, and focus analytically on the demographics.