Okay, this really goes to the heart of the disagreement. You guys seem to be saying that the best course is to "whether the storm" under Obama, let the Democrats get the blame, and come back strong in 2016 with a truly conservative GOP candidate.
I think that is too late. ObamaCare is the 4th major entitlement program this country cannot afford, and if it is not repealed before it goes fully into effect in 2014, it will never be repealed. And by 2016, we will be too far down the road of fiscal irresponsibility/socialism for even the second coming of Ronald Reagan to save us.
Obama has shown that he will use executive orders, refusal of the Justice Department and ICE to enforce the laws, and every other dirty trick in the book to expand his power. By 2016, he likely will have crafted immigration and election policies that make election of a conservative impossible. We will be a permanent electoral minority.
On top of that, the fiscal cliff he is sending us over, the expansion of a new dependent class via ObamaCare, and the faceplant into Medicare insolvency will be too far gone to be reversed.
2016 is too late. Romney is certainly a risk, but given that he has at least promised to support Ryan's budget, opposes Obama's immigration moves, and supports repealing ObamaCare and making it a state issue, there is at least a chance that we can at least hold serve with him. We can halt the downward trajectory, and perhaps apply political pressure to him to make him hew as closely as possible to conservative values.certain loss on every one of those issues if Obama is reelected.
So there is a our fundamental disagreement. You think the country can weather the Obama storm until 2016, and I don't. So, my only option is to roll the dice with the guy who may do things differently.
I'd rather play Russian roulette with one chamber empty, than all of them loaded.
All those things you say we cannot re-elect Obama for, are things Romney would very probably do under the banner of Republican, though his causes might be different -- he's a big believer in global warming, for example. You have your eyes squeezed tightly shut to what Romney is, and are seeing him only as you hope he'd be. You are also squeezing your eyes tightly shut to any role conservatives in Congress, increased in number and motivated to keep right by the clear rejection of Romney, would have in opposing Obama. So you reach your conclusions based on incomplete factors.
Romney isn't a risk. He's a sure bet -- for making liberalism more powerful in both parties and making conservatives and conservatism in the Republican party weaker.
With my third party vote, I forfeit any say in influencing whether or not we get Obama or Romney. What I am voting for is to join the millions of Americas on both sides of the aisle who are disgusted with both of them, and pray that the next president is so weak politically that he could only muster a little more than one vote in three because of bleed-off to third party candidates by thoroughly fed-up voters. Heaven knows that both Obama and Romney are so weak that this could actually happen in 2012. It's a Hail Mary pass, but it's the only play open to me -- Romney is off the table for me in every way, from moral to political. I refuse to vote against my own spiritial and political interests, and a vote for Romney would be just that.
Regardless of how the electoral college vote worked out, the popular vote has the potential of putting the next lemon president -- and he will be something more than a lemon -- on defense. It's the best any of us can hope for, because no matter how many boogie men you shake at us, no matter how many scary scenarios you present, the fact remains that as president, Romney would make liberals more powerful in both parties, and the fact remains that Obama would do the opposite, whether he meant to or not.