I’ve never read that book, and I don’t know his rules.
What I wrote there is simply my thoughts on the matter.
I see that you need to classify them as something less than good in order to justify your defense of what they did.
I understand that you want to elect the perpetrator to be president, and thus you don’t want to see anything bad in him.
I get it. You may continue to deceive yourself as you please.
We win if any of Cruz, Trump, or Rubio (in the spirit of full disclosure I prefer Cruz over the others) are elected over Hillary or Sanders, or whoever the Democrats come up with in their places. I have seen enough elections where Republicans form circular firing squads and end-up killing decent candidates and giving us the least qualified and most easily defeated candidate.
One of Saul Alinksy’s Rules for Radicals (the playbook for the left) is to destroy the enemy by making him live up to his own rule book. That is exactly what you are doing, and in the process you are decreasing the likelihood of conservatives having a strong candidate.
Instead of focusing on trivial arguments for why other candidates are worse than yours, why not focus on why your candidate is better than the others?