Well, if Reagan conservatism - pro-life, pro-family, pro-constitution, pro-sovereignty, pro-border security, peace through strength, pro-liberty - represents you, you could vote for me, for example.
Tom Hoefling for President 2012
Or, if you lean more Ron Paul paleo-con isolationist you could vote for the Constitution Party's candidate.
Or, if you're a Libertarian, you can vote Libertarian.
Etc.
The two pro-choice democrat socialists being offered by the historically "major" parties are not the only choices.
The American people should support the candidates who represent them, especially in the presidential contest.
If they don't, the result is obvious. A total distortion of reality. No representation for conservatives, or conservatism, at all.
If you'll recall, I said "effectively," there are only two choices. By that, I meant only two choices who have a chance of winning the election.
And once again, FWIW, my assessment of Romney is that he is right-of-center in his political philosophy, a thoroughgoing champion of American-style capitalism, and thus not a "democrat socialist" nor a state/corporatist capitalist (a la Benito Mussolini).
Neither is Obama, in my judgment, a "democrat socialist." He is a radical left Progressive cum anarchist.
And that is your "effective" choice.
To me, a vote for any third-party candidate this year — e.g., Virgil Goode or Tom Hoefling — is a feel-good vanity vote, and nothing more.
It will only help the worst president in U.S. history to win four more years in office. And he will continue to apply the wrecking ball to America, her great institutions, and the Constitution itself. He is a student of Saul Alinsky. He will continue to divide our society along racial, ethnic, class, and sexual orientation lines. And then when social chaos and mayhem finally ensue, he will order police force against the American people "to restore order."
If this sort of thing doesn't bother you, what more can I say?