If supporting Romney required "just a little" in the way of compromise, I bet this thread wouldn't be as long as it is or that Jim Robinson would have started it.
Here's the deal: supporting Romney requires so much compromising on the part of conservatives that it makes the whole thing moot. Some of us conservatives actually pay attention to the details of what Romney says. Here's a doozie from his PAC speech regarding cap and trade and how any plan must be worldwide in scope: "Let's have a worldwide solution, not an American one." In other words, roll over, America, and allow the hoax that is "global warming" to enable a globally-endorsed power grab of energy production and use and distribution. That, FRiend, is the antithesis of free markets, self-determination, and independence; in short, it is the antithesis of American conservatism.
Romney doesn't require "a little compromise" on the part of conservatives, he requires wholesale abandoment of basic conservative principle. THAT is why he must be rejected, and why rejecting him is necessarily part of the process conservatives must engage in NOW in order to allow the rise of a real conservative who will most certaintly require "a little compromise" instead of abandonment of principle.
Let’s get off Romney - lists some names that you feel that most posters here can get behind...
It does appear that in some ways we are collectively becoming the Group of NO, not a party of NO - just a group of people posting here - Republicans, Conservatives, etc - all looking to off candidate with no alternative that can win. Just say NO! My way, each one of us - or the highway.