That doesn't mean you can say with any degree of certainty that he'd have used the bully pulpit to push gun laws through, or supported the kinds of actions holder's DOJ has taken.
And if he would have been "far better than obama," then one is compelled to ask why would anyone opposed to obama's policies not vote for him, knowing that a vote for a third, much weaker candidate would strengthen obama's position, and accomplish nothing?
Politics is as much about opposition to bad policy, as it is about advocacy for good policy.
Would/should we advocate for the "best" policy? Yes, of course.
Does that mean, short of the "best" policy, that we have no alternative when it comes to opposing bad policies?
No, of course not.
I have no answer for those that insist the legislature "do something" about mass murderers.
But I know bad bills like Oregon's 945 and 941 will do nothing good, so I oppose them and legislators that support them.
Because they are bad policy.
And I don't need Mitt Romney, Ron Paul or anyone else, RINO or otherwise, to support me in that decision.
It's clearly a matter of their record, their voting history that tells you what they will do. Not crystal ball not rocket science that says when a leader is put in a position to stand for our Constitutional rights and doesn't he will vote this way again. Sad to me that people will defend such a vote when it is clearly against their own rights.
Obama vote was a vote to destroy the nation, we see that has turned out to be true. A vote for Mitt meant the nation might survive but our gun rights would be a huge fight to keep. I voted for Mitt in an effort to stand my values of our gun rights even though I didn't trust him at all. I won't compromise on rights but try to pick a battle that can be won.