I will not vote for Romney or the Kenyan bastard if a gun were put to my head.
The way I see it, we have three options: vote for arsenic (Obama), vote for cyanide because it's not arsenic (ABO Romney vote), or vote to dilute whichever poison wins.
LF Capitalist asks: Would it be better to have more Tea Partiers elected along with Romney being elected? In this scenario, would we see fighting between Romney and the Tea Partiers ....?
If Romney lost because 25% voted third party, enough to give it to Obama on a 38% plurality, where a full 62% of Americans voted AGAINST him (and effectively 63% voted AGAINST Romney), conservatives will have have won a MAJOR victory.
If Romney wins, WORSE if he wins with a majority, he, the GOP elite, and Republican moderates (not to mention the liberal MSM) would dominate, saying, "Moderate won with a mandate! Sit down and shut up, conservatives -- we're the only reason the Republican party even has the White House." A liberal Republican president, the defacto head of the Republican party, especially one with a demonstrable record of playing political HARDBALL, would bulldoze conservatives, and Democrats would look noble "reaching across the aisl" to enact "bipartisan" leglislation advancing cap-and-trade environmental regulation on energy and food production, the homosexual agenda, government-run health care, and on-demand abortion, all things Romney ADVANCED while Governor.
When supreme court nominations came up and Romney proceeded to nominate a liberal activist judge of the type he appointed about 75% of the time in Massachusetts, and we saw our embattled conservatives in Congress frustratingly mute ... we'd be seeing a form of hardball in action. Romney is organized and financed.
I'm washing my hands of deciding whether arsenic or cyanide is better -- the vote I cast will be NEUTRAL as to that outcome, but it WILL be active in helping make it so whichever poison wins, is as diluted and weakened as possible.