I haven’t rejected you. I just think you are wrong.
I am a committed, dedicated social conservative, RM. There’s no way I could vote for a guy who just a FEW WEEKS AGO came out in favor of gay couples. And then he added to it that gay couples should be allowed to adopt children.
I’m not talking ancient history here. It was just recently. I could look it up for you if you missed it.
I would be violating my religious faith to support that.
Ronald Magnus, Romney's saying that gay couples "who love each other" should be able to adopt children, is a euphemism for "the government should be allowed to punish adoption agencies that refuse to cooperate with gay couples who want to adopt children." THAT is what Romney really means, and that is what you would really be sanctioning at the top of the Republican party, whether you intended to or not.
I'm with xzins: voting FOR a guy like that is asking -- it is begging -- for massive and permanent buyer's remorse.
Voting for Romney is as nuts as voting for Obama, and in fact all those Republicans/conservatives we'll be voting for downticket would be HINDERED by Romney if he was in the White House, so I doubt they're "all voting for Romney," as you assure us upthread.
They may not say as much because the kneejerk blowback from panicked and angry Republicans would be so hysterical, but I'll bet thare are at least a few who know how Romney would treat conservative Republicans once he was in office -- like "fringe kooks," as one of Romney's supporters-though-he-claims-he's-not considers folks like me, xzins, Jim Robinson, and more than 250 other FReepers who understand that Romney is a BIG mistake.
The ONLY way conservatives can vote at the top of the ticket to try to give an advantage to the conservatives we'll be voting for downticket, is to vote so that whichever statist gets in office lacks a popular mandate. Conservatives in Congress will have more pull and more juice if they're able to deal with the statist pro-homosexual "gays should be able to force adoption agencies to accommodate them and should be able to force every accommodation in the U.S. military" president, whichever guy it happens to be, who was opposed by the majority of Americans in the popular vote.
The last time a president was elected on a thin plurality, a "revolution" of the opposing party happened in Congress two years later, in 1994. :^)
Pray for a plurality, vote for a plurality. I'm voting third party to do my part in helping give conservatives a leg-up on statist president they are guaranteed to have to fight.