Everyone here is free to vote for whomever they want, or believe whatever they want, including (on a case by case basis) voting for the lesser of two evils. But given the main agenda of pro-liberty people, it is reasonable to declare some politicians like Romney are "beyond the pale," given that they completely oppose ALL of that agenda.
Romney is not the lesser of two evils, he is as toxic to liberty as the Democrat would be, even more so because he would have right cover in office, just as GW Bush did. Obarry is actually the "lesser of two evils" figure, if you want to take that approach to its ultimate conclusion, because rank and file Republicans are willing to scrutinize his policies to a depth they would NEVER go if a Republican had beaten him, and enacted the same measures.
Our movement has a higher standard than cynical "lesser" pragmatism, and it is simply far more consistent for us to either vote 3rd party or sit out the election. If our advocacy of that sounds like an ultimatum, it is because anything less, means the exact status quo we are always complaining about.
