Two views, via e-mail: First, from Pennsylvania:

Ms. Lopez,
I really hope you’re not thinking about ditching Romney for Rudy.
Would Rudy oppose embryo-destructive research? Would he continue the Mexico City policy? Would he encourage abstinence education? Would he sign an interstate parental notification bill? Would his State Department lobby against “reproductive rights” language in U.N. treaties and conventions? Would his solicitor general even argue in favor of pro-life laws like the partial-birth abortion ban? What about the Defense of Marriage Act?
Come on. Yes, the Supreme Court nominations are paramount. But let’s be
honest: a Giuliani presidency would be a significant setback–nay, a series of significant setbacks–for the traditional family and for the unborn. On so many issues, Giuliani ranges from outright liberal, at worst, to wild gamble, at best. I don’t know why conservatives–and social conservatives in particular–would contemplate supporting such a man when there are a number of more responsible alternatives.
I respect Giuliani a great deal, but what is at stake is much too serious for conservatives to be so capricious as to nominate him for the presidency. I’ll take an insincere social conservative over a sincere social liberal any day. Not to mention that Rudy is nominally Catholic, which is going to cause all sorts of other problems.
He should have run for senate, or governor, in New York, where he would have been conservatives’ best hope. “Rudy for president” is a fantasy, and conservatives better wake up and keep it that way.

and

I don’t agree with him on social issues, but like many have said – I will hold my nose and vote for him in 2008, given his phenomenal record as DA and then of course mayor – pre, during, and post 9/11. He speaks better than any of the other potential Republican candidates, plus he would be the first American of Italian ancestry to be Pres. America likes “firsts” of any kind.