I saddened that you find it so difficult to understand the rather obvious and common-sense conclusion that “bad” is better than “worse”.
I gather that most people will be able to decide which lever to pull if the two choices for President turn out to be “John Edwards” and “Mitt Romney”. They will know which of those candidiates will appoint the conservative judges America needs to prune back our creeping government, whose growth has been ENABLED by liberal judges and which candidate will appoint more Constitution-ignoring liberal judges.
Of course, you are free to insist on a “third choice”, a vote for “none-of-the-above”. And you are free to snarl from the sidelines about your “moral superiority” while you do NOTHING productive.
But such “holier-than-thou” posturing strikes me as naive, selfish and vain.
Saaaaayy.....?
Are you really Ron Paul, the “vanity” candidate?
Some of indeed understand.
I'm a great-grandpa who understands that all these years of voting for "bad" instead of worse have gotten us the same place just one or two "worse' would have. Sad to say, I should have voted for worse when the backlash might have caused a change in direction, instead of sitting in the 'hot tub' with the rest of the frogs getting cooked slowly.
Now, I'm not sure there are enough of us left who understand the abyss between the Constitution and what is practiced to make a difference.