Such Republicans set back conservatism far more than liberal Democrats.
The choice between Giuliani and Hillary would be a choice between the Nixon years and the Bill Clinton years. The latter was far better for conservatives as Republicans gained control of Congress and forced Clinton into a balanced budget and welfare reform.
As I stated, I will NOT give up a chance at a conservative President in 2012 and a chance to gain back Congress as soon as 2010 in order to put a liberal Republican in the White House, which guarantees no conservative President until 2016 and a Republican minority in Congress.
Such Republicans set back conservatism far more than liberal Democrats.
They don't set conservatism further back than communist Democrats.
You're blind, Sparky. You can't see what the Democrat Party has become since the election of George W. Bush.
These are not the Democrats of the Nixon Years...they aren't even the Democrats of the Bill Clinton years.
These people are socialists who won't stop until the government controls every aspect of our lives, until America is defeated in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East, until every vestige of Constitutional Republican government in America is destroyed.
A President's primary responsibility is that of Commander-In-Chief. If you're comfortable with Hillary in that role (and she will grow the power of the Presidency and the Executive Branch by leaps) then go ahead, vote third party if Rudy is nominated, shill for Hillary and watch the country implode.
I will not do so.