That ought to be the mantra of the Libertarian Party, but we know exactly how much electoral success they’ve had over the years. I know I keep beating on this drum, but I think it’s important. Ed Morrissey is supporting Romney, but he also has this to say:
I’m supporting Mitt Romney because I think he is the better option. If Mitt doesn’t win the nomination, I plan to support John McCain. He will have won the support of more of the party, and that would make him the man to carry the banner. I will still oppose some of his policy stands and acknowledge his apparent animus at times to the party base, but he will still be a much better choice for the nation than Hillary Clinton.
Mitt is a little too unpredictable and wishy washy sleazy for my taste, but if he’s the nominee, I’ll vote for him. I won’t like it, but I guarantee I won’t like Hillary or Obama, combined with a Democratic Congress. The last time we had that, we all remember what happened, and I don’t think, this time, we can count on a perfect storm for Republicans sweeping them into power. Via Dr. Helen, I also found this excellent post:
It’s not that I think they must like McCain; I understand it if they don’t. And it’s not even that I think they have to vote for him if nominated by their party. Nor is it just that they are seriously out of touch with political reality in this country, although that’s certainly part of it.It’s that they have elevated party purity above considerations of the good of the country. In the end, not only is this bad for the country, but I think it’s bad for the Republican Party.
Many of the commenters on that thread have forgotten the Law of Thirds. What’s the Law of Thirds? I made it up, and described it here. The following is a short recap:
[M]y law refers to the fact that the populace of the US seems to be divided roughly into thirds, at least in the political sense: one-third on the entrenched left, one-third on the entrenched right, and one-third in between….Anyone from either radical third who thinks the American people will be happy to give his/her third a permanent ascendance in American political life is quite wrong, IMHO, and that person will be soundly rejected by said American people if he/she arrogantly and openly displays the hubris of thinking so…
The biggest mistake conservatives, and especially second amendment activists can make is not understanding that our specific political views are minority views. It’s not that other people don’t have sympathies to those views, or are indifferent to them, but people who care enough about the second amendment enough to vote for someone based on that issue are not numerous enough to win an election.  We can help win an election in coalition with other interests, and we can break that coalition by not voting with them, but that doesn’t mean the other factions will come crawling back. They very well may reform a majority coalition without gun owners in it by fronting candidates with a different balance of positions. Then where do we turn?
Dr. Helen has a useful observation about the notion that it’s only by the nation hitting rock bottom, will everyone realize the solution is found in conservatives: “alcoholics often hit rock bottom and stay there”
