Unfortunately I have to disagree. At that point Hunter and Thompson were still in the race, and even though everyone knew neither had a realistic chance of winning, too many people would have refused to support him "on principle".
We conservatives need to learn that politics is a game played by coalitions, and that game, by definition, requires compromise.
For example, I was concerned about Romney supporting the second amendment, but my gut feeling on this is that gun rights has the momentum right now (more and more states are passing concealed carry as well as home defense statutes). This momentum makes me reasonably sure that Romney would not push any gun grabbing measures, and even if he did they probably wouldn't pass, so I could drop that concern from my evaluation of Romney. His stance on abortion is a non-issue because the president has very little influence on that issue.
No candidate is perfect, so we always settle for good enough or lesser of two evils. The alternative is to become irrelevant. If you think staying home and allowing a democrat to be elected will ultimately lead to a conservative being elected down the road you are deluding yourself.
“No candidate is perfect, so we always settle for good enough or lesser of two evils. The alternative is to become irrelevant. If you think staying home and allowing a democrat to be elected will ultimately lead to a conservative being elected down the road you are deluding yourself.”
I agree with most of what you have to say and voted for Romney myself. But if conservatives let it be known that they will always vote for a candidate who is a 5 on a scale from 1 to 10 if the Dem. alternative is a 1 or 2, why should any Republican hopeful ever be a 7 or 8 — not a “perfect” conservative (who would not get elected in a general election anyway) but at least a credible conservative?