When you have to intentionally re-state another's words, solely in order to "defeat" a point entirely of your own dishonest creation: you've already lost the argument.
Something to think about.
Is this another kind of Godwin’s law? Find me the entry in the debate dictionary that proves anything remotely close to what you say. You are outright claiming you are the non-rationalization people. But you need to realize that rationalization can take short cuts that are overly reactionary as well as those that are overly lax. Yes it is possible to rationalize an opposition to voting for Mitt.