"The National Journal's rating system put him at 56 percent conservative and 44 percent liberal on economic issues in 1996 and assessed him as liberal by 59 to 40 percent in looking at his social issues votes."

We're talking about a guy whose record is pro-abortion (even pro-partial birth abortion), pro-gun control, and pro-illegal immigration. We're talking about a guy who was endorsed by New York's Liberal Party in 1989. Rudy even personally endorsed Mario Cuomo and said he was open to endorsing Bill Clinton.

This is not a man who is going to make Republicans happy if he becomes President. Yes, he would be better than Hillary, but he would also break the hearts of conservatives over and over again on issues that we deeply care about if he gets into office.

Now, I want to be clear about something: if Rudy Giuliani captures the nomination, I will vote for him and I would strongly encourage you to do the same. But, I can't pretend to be even the tiniest bit enthusiastic about having Rudy as our nominee.

To the contrary, Rudy is a dangerous candidate for the GOP. He could potentially tear the fabric of the Republican Party asunder by alienating millions of pro-life social conservatives so badly that they may vote for a third party candidate or turn away from the Republican Party entirely. That means a Rudy Giuliani candidacy could seriously damage the coalition that has delivered so many victories for the GOP from 1980 forward.

Additionally, it's worth noting that while the "Rudy is the most electable candidate" shtick seems plausible at first glance, it's pure vapor -- no more solid than the "John Kerry is our most electable candidate" nonsense that Democrats bought into hook, line, and sinker back in 2004. Why is that? Because millions of pro-life Republicans would stay home in 2008 if Rudy is the nominee. Because it seems unlikely that a pro-abortion New Yorker running as a Republican could carry every southern state. Because, most importantly, he is not currently beating Hillary Clinton in head-to-head polls in any state that George Bush didn't win in 2004. In other words, he doesn't live up to the hype that says he's going to put several key blue states into play. So, if you take away the electability angle from Rudy Giuliani, what's left that makes him appealing to conservatives?

Put another way, if you love RINOS like Arlen Specter and Lincoln Chafee, Rudy may be a good choice for you. If you're sick of social conservatives and would like to see their agenda rejected, even if it risks turning large numbers of them off to the Republican Party, vote Rudy. If you think that Rudy is the most electable candidate and your only concern is beating Hillary, I don't think that you're right, but I do understand backing Giuliani for that reason. However, if that's not what you're looking for, there is still time to choose another candidate.

Long story short, conservatives who are backing Rudy should go into it "eyes wide open" and understand exactly what they're getting. They're getting a Republican Bill Clinton: an ethically compromised candidate that Republicans will constantly have to apologize for and who is destined to disappoint conservatives either by losing in 2008 or by winning and then opposing us on many of the issues we care about most once he gets into office.