When we are this far out from event the first primaries or caucuses the discussion should not be "OK, we'll support RINOs or moderates because they are at least better than Obama."
Really, the discussion should be: Who is the best constitutional conservative that tea partiers should get behind and help propel them to win the GOP nomination.
No point talking about what we're willing to "settle" for. It's the same issue we always used to use to criticize those who called for a timetable for withdrawal from either Iraq or Afghanistan. You don't start the debate by saying how much you'll compromise for. You fight for what you want, and then if you're forced to settle for less you deal with that at the time you can't do any better.
Agreed with your basic point. It is too far out to be talking about Romney or any other republican being any sort of foregone winner of the nomination. The tea party people should keep advocating for their issues.
I am just responding to those who would allow Obama four more years of destruction, rather than vote for Romney in a general election.