Effective strategy is usually comprised of many different tactics, and differing tactics are required wherever diverse people are attempting to unite in common cause to address problematic issues.

Even in the smallest, most insular of communities, it is simply not useful to adopt a position that basically rejects the opinions and value of anyone who doesn't agree with and support every single thing you supprt to the exact same degree as you do. If we trtied to live our lives that way we'd never accord anyone else any legitimacy at all for anything, because no one else is going to have the exact same priorities as each of us does down to the last detail. (And, for what it's worth, many of us would have to repudiate even ourselves with this approach to judgment, because we change our own priorities sometimes.

So, the question is, as I see it, "Where do we draw the line?" Can we accept as friends and lovers and persons worthy of respect people who don't agree with us in every instance all the time? Of course we can and we do so all the time. This is not to say that there aren't boundaries to such fellowship, it is only to say that an absolutist  mindset that says that only those who agree with ones own views completely are deserving of friendship or respect or have value is a dysfunctional mindset at it's core.

In politics, it's fundamentally the same question, modified only slightly. Can I support someone in opposition to someone else even when that person doesn't adhere exactly to my own beliefs? And conversely, can I refuse to support someone like that even when doing so might enable and even worse thug to rise to power?

In the last presidential election I would have voted for a dead dog if I thought it would get Cheney and his band of psychopaths out of office. I "might" have even voted for a so-called "pro life" Dem if it could have gotten the Bush lunatics out. If I were living in Pennsylvania right now, however, despite it being my home state and despite the fact that I regard Santorum as a totally repugnant sicko, I can't imagine I'd ever cast my vote for anti abortion rights crusader Casey, even if it meant Santorum would win.

These are examples of where I "draw the lines", so to speak, between where I'll give support to the lesser bum and where I won't. But I acknowledge that there are instances in which I see one or the other of these
choices as appropriate. I cannot say honestly to myself, I will always choose one or the other. If supporting a bum in the short term might save the life of a loved one, I might do it. Like in the story "Sophie's Choice", she agreed to the demands of her abusers because she thought doing so would preserve the life of her remaining child.

Denial is our most dangerous adversary.