I don't argue for moral relativism as I believe it is a false position, philosophicalyl and metaphysically. Moral relativistism is a term with a quite different meaning than you use in this context; and I believe, is therefore a non sequitur in response to our debate here.
Lesser of two evils arguments are the epitome of moral relativism.
I do not believe this free republic can possibly be saved until and unless conservatives return to a principled position, one based solely on the nation's founding moral premises, and refuse to any longer compromise them for anyone, or for any perceived politically expedient reasons.
-- George Washington"If, to please the people, we offer what we ourselves disprove, how can we afterwards defend our work? Let us raise a standard to which the wise and the honest can repair. The event is in the hand of God."
A vote for Mitt Romney is the exact opposite of that.
And it isn't just that it empowers that lying socialist. It's that it corrupts those who have compromised to support him.
With his impending nomination, we're already seeing that corruption showing up all over the place. Including FR.
Nutritionally you are what you eat. Politically you are who and what you endorse. There's no avoiding it.