“A vote for Romney won’t advance conservatism.”
Col. you obviously don’t want to be dissuaded. While a vote for Romney won’t advance conservatism, it creates an environment where WE can advance conservatism. We can’t just elect a prez and then wash our hands and sit back. It is and always has been up to us. We the People.
And, at this point, a vote for a third party candidate or not voting at all, advances 0. Me - I would hate to know that I was partly responsible for a second term of 0.
But, Suzy, it does no such thing. It gives control of the Republican Party to a man even more left-wing than the last nominee this site detested so much. That doesn't advance conservatism.
And, at this point, a vote for a third party candidate or not voting at all, advances 0.
And so, the argument comes full circle. Mathematically, that argument is in error and can be discounted on its face.
But to the larger question, why is it that the "anyone" ABOs talk about is ONLY Romney? You can float the name of Virgil Goode or Tom Hoefling, who posts on this very website ... they are also "anyone but Obama" but people don't seem to want to talk about genuine conservative options that still remain. It's always Romney, and, yourself notably excepted, it's name-calling after that.
I've got another poster on this thread calling me treasonous. What do you think, Suzy? Am I disloyal to the United States of America for advocating a conservative on a conservative website?