Sitting out an election and helping elect Hillary or Obama isn't rationale nor logical to me. I reject a strategy of electing dems in the dire hope that the public will later accept a more conservative candidate later. Makes no sense. In the next 4-8 years a large number of SC justices will be replaced. I would prefer McCain to pick them rather than Hillary or Obama.
Elections are ALWAYS about comparative choices as no candidate agrees with a voter completely on issues. We are where we are. No one is happy about that - least of all me. But I vote with my head not my emotions. Elections are not personal - it just business.
As I said, your position is defensible. However, I disagree that sitting out an election is irrational or illogical. And while you're free to opine that allowing dems to be elected can lead to a more conservative candidate doesn't make sense; history does not bear you out. It was Carter's incompetent, self-loathing, vacillating administration that directly paved the way for Reagan. It not only enabled Reagan to prevail in the general election, but it also allowed him to win the nomination over Bush 41 and a host of moderate contenders. There's also the fact that the klinton adminstration's initial leftward lurch, such as attempting to socialize health care, using the military for social engineering, and raising taxes ("contributions" in klinton-speak) led to the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994. Had we fielded a better candidate in 1996, we would have booted klinton out after one term. As it was, Congress largely kept him in check, though he had the gall to claim the prosperity of the 90s as his legacy (a largely unsuccessful effort since anybody with half a brain could see that he had as much to do with that as a rooster's crowing causes the sun to rise).
However, the point is that both sides are defensible and that good conservatives will be found on each side.
See my tagline.