I don't. If I were to vote strictly based on my principles, I would support Ron Paul. But voting is a strategic act. It requires political judgment in addition to conviction.
I have a PhD in marketing, and am very experienced in political consulting as well as market segmentation and brand positioning. Viewed through that prism, it is very clear to me that Rudy is the only candidate capable of winning the general election in 2008.
There is no point to having an education if you let your hopes and dreams get in the way of your ability to objectively assess information.
Put simply, I do not let my political ideology cloud my political judgment.
Nor do I. And my political judgement says that long-term it would be more damaging to the issues that are important to me to have those issues become irrelevant to both major US parties.
As far as strategy goes, here's how I see it playing out if Giuliani wins the nomination: a third party emerges on the right and siphons off enough votes to let the donks win. Have you noticed that despite Giuliani's baggage, the NY Times and its ilk have been holding their fire? I haven't seen stories such as "Leading Republican Candidate Has Shady Past" splashed from coast to coast detailing his more, er, unusual proposals such as seizing property from those acquitted of a crime, or collecting DNA from all newborns, or setting his mistress up with taxpayer-funded security from city detectives. Do you think they're just trying to play fair? Or could it be that they're keeping their powder dry until after he's nominated? If they feared Giuliani as a candidate, we'd be hit with wall-to-wall Giuliani scandal to rival the Anna Nicole Smith coverage.
Or, put simply, you do not have any core beliefs that you are not willing to compromise for the sake of winning a political race.