Frank Donatelli lays it it out here.
One sentence version: Any of the Democrats who would get elected as a result of a third-party candidate would be worse than Giuliani on the issues that are important to conservatives, including with Supreme Court nominations. Yup.
John Hawkins agrees:
The point is: the GOP is not perfect and it’s not ever going to be perfect, but if conservatives want to get our agenda enacted or to block the Democrats agenda, we need Republicans in office — and the more of them the better.
Does that mean we’re, “supporting the leftward shift of the Republican party?” No, it means that we’re acknowledging that the GOP is the imperfect instrument through which conservatives enact our agenda. It’s better to put Republicans in office and try to shape their behavior to our liking than to put Democrats into power and then pat ourselves on the back for our purity.
Hawkins also points out that the challenges should come in the primary process, whether it is a presidential race or a congressional race. We have every right to support challengers who we feel are more ideologically pure, or for the simple reason that the incumbent hasn’t been an effective representative for our interests. That’s where the presidential race is now. Everyone has their own pet issues, and none of the candidates are seen as the perfect choice. It comes back to something I have always believed and have written about previously…it’s always better to get most of what you want with Republicans than to get none of what you want with Democrats. That is especially true when we consider a potential Hillary-Rudy matchup next November.
While it makes sense to vote for someone like Giuliani over Hillary, I can understand why someone who doesn’t believe that Rudy’s the right guy wouldn’t want to donate money to him or to volunteer for his campaign. You can’t sell a candidate you don’t believe in.