Well put.
Which leaves us with a painful truth:
In choosing between the lesser of two evils, we still get evil - yet must make the choice of the lesser evil precisely because it is the _lesser_ evil, evil though it may be.
Indeed, hard to persuade others with that argument, but persuade we must.
But that's the whole point of my post; if it were just Romney but the Republican party were what it said it was about, that would give some confidence that they would keep him from doing evil... but being that they do not do what they say they will do, they provide no such check to the man. Indeed, the more that the Republican party takes its constituents for granted (because of the stated-but-not-pursued goals) the more they become merely liars, to the point that even if they would stand0up for something no-one would [or even should] believe them -- It is a case of the boy who cried wolf; they have-become/are-becoming storm-clouds that taunt, dark but not bringing rain.
But, as I've said on this very thread: I am unconvinced that Romney is not a greater evil than Obama.
Some may say that's supporting Obama; they're idiots though: mistrust in one does not equate to trues in the other. Just because I think the used car guy is sleazy doesn't mean that I don't think the snake-oil salesman is sleazy too.
Those who are wise realize that we will choose between two evils every time we go to the ballot box unless we write in Jesus.
In all seriousness, I ask the same question that I asked people in 2004: Why not write in George Washington? If you’re going to vote for a candidate who can’t possibly take the oath on Jan 20 instead of helping stop Obama, why not vote for the best presidential candidate there ever was?