I promised myself at that time never, ever, ever again. I meant it then and I mean it now.
For those who might say, "at least Romney is not as bad as Obama," my response is this:
Romney and Obama are both progressives. Yes, Obama is taking the train down the tracks at 100 mph and, admittedly, Romney would likely only take the train down the tracks at 60 mph, but they will both drive the train down the same track in the same direction. The only difference is when the train arrives at station, not if it will get there.Suppose, for a second, that Mittens was elected in '12 and the Congress went more Republican (maybe control of the Senate). Would they stand up to a RINO president any better than they've stood up to Obama...or would they rubber-stamp his policies? I bet they'd do the latter.
Nope. I will not ever, ever, ever vote for a RINO to occupy 1600 PA Avenue. Anybody forwarding a "he's better than the alternative" argument had better think again, and think hard.
You echo a large segment of FR with this post. I do believe that there is a line (you know it when you see it) where this can come into play if the nominee (e.g. Romney, McQueeg, Newtie) is below a minimum acceptance level. However, since the consequences of an n0bama re-election are so severe (e.g. life-long Supreme Court appointments), I also believe that conservatives need to think hard on broadening the acceptable nominees who are truly above 'the line' (e.g. Bachmann, Cain, Perry, Palin), and indeed beyond one's favorite candidate.
I really do wonder WWRD* in the GOP POTUS 2012. Possibly this ...
* What Would Reagan Do?