How about putting the country's interest ahead of the movement? Would you be as sanguine about that concept if the "leftist movement" were the priority over the country's interest on the other side of the aisle?
Just asking.
And let me be clear. Guiliani is NOT my first choice. But Hillary is my LAST choice.
What movement would that be?
The conservative movement, if it's still alive that is, is itself in the country's best interest and it must be kept intact if Hillary is to be defeated. If Giuliani splits the Republican vote bloc into something like 90% for Rudy and 10% for a 3rd party and stay at homes we will get the worst of all worlds, a Hillary administration and a floundering, impotent, more liberal GOP further alienating social conservatives by accusing them of allowing her to win.You can curse and rail at that 10% all you want, but that won't affect the way they vote next year
By the time all that gets worked out and the rift is bandaged over, Hillary will have wreaked so much havoc on America that it would take generations to erase it all, if that would even be possible. But that disastrous result of a divided GOP vote can be avoided by simply nominating a Republican other than Rudy. I believe that faced with a choice between Hillary and any of the other GOP candidates, including Mitt, almost every social/evangelical conservative would crawl over broken glass to vote against Hillary.
Mitt is not my candidate by any stretch, and that's probably true of most evangelicals. However, if he is nominated his Mormon religion will not deter me from voting for him, but I can't say the same for Rudy.