>> Romney’s loss, on the other hand, would put the fear of God into RINOs
This IS the essence of anti-Romney argument which I believe is a valid argument.
All the other assertions, principles, methodologies, sophistic dismissals, and for-is-not-against rhetoric is itself bunk. The math is very, very simple regardless of the symbolism that lands in the middle under the veil of 3rd party, or no vote at all. If the goal is to crush the GOP Establishment, then direct action should be taken to support Obama. Any vote that does not go to Obama helps Romney. Leaving the outcome up to other votes isn’t a persuasive argument when the goal is to prevent Romney from winning.
I don’t understand the problem with saying: “To Hell with Romney and the GOP Establishment. I’m voting for Obama to ensure the final destruction of the machine that’s continually betrayed Life and the constituency.”
That is clear is day — it makes sense. No convoluted indirection, concerns about sophistry, nor the double-negative, back-flipping, anti-anti-votes.
It would indeed be a radical statement to say one is voting for Obama for the aforementioned reasons, but considering the numerous accusations of cowardice, it is plausible that the courageous move would involve declaring one’s vote for Obama — a vote that would be an unambiguous, direct attack against the GOP Establishment.
Hell, I’m beginning to talk myself into doing so... (grinning)
The problem with that statement is that it would make no sense for a conservative who hates socialism to say that I am voting against the Fabian socialist Romney by voting for a Marxist socialist Obama.
I hate RINOs, the GOP-e and the entire liberal GOP establishment but just as I will not vote for a socialist like Romney, I will also not vote for a socialist like Obama.
So though some ABOs seem to have no problem voting for their favorite socialist, my conservative principles won’t allow me to vote for people like Romney or Obama.
My goal in voting third party is to deny a popular mandate to whichever statist wins; a lack of popular mandate would help conservatives in Congress regardless of which guy won. Despite your protestations to the contrary, a third-party vote favors neither Obama nor Romney. It's MATH.
If it was Obama who happened to win instead of Romney -- and Obama has lost so much support that it's a good bet he couldn't pull even 50% of the popular vote and could only eke a plurality -- it would help to crush the GOP Establishment because their guy LOST and squish moderate Republicans wouldn't want to be next, so they'd be more inclined to become more conservative.
But just as the price of voting "against" Obama is to vote FOR statist Romney, the price of voting FOR a plurality is to forfeit any say in whether Obama or Romney wins.
Keep grinning if it makes you feel better.