In this election, what seems like Romney's greatest flaw is actually his greatest strength. Romney's inconsistent record is evidence that he is willing to be pragmatic for the sake of advancing his political career.  If you want to be charitable, perhaps you can convince yourself that his beliefs really do swerve back and forth so severely, but, it seems more probable that Romney is more attuned to politics than principle.

But pragmatism (at least in the modern American political arena) has tighter boundaries than radicalism. Obama, on the hand, has demonstrated a ceaseless pursuit of the ideology of "fundamental transformation."  Maybe the Far Left is upset that he failed to close Guantanamo Bay and concealed his true position on gay marriage for a time, but, by any reasonable conservative or even moderate standards, his policies are far removed from what the average American desires for their country.

"Principle over politics" is only a force for good if the principle is good. "Principle over politics" is perilous when the principle is...otherwise. I would rather bet my vote on someone who puts politics above principle, rather than someone who put radical principles above politics.

I know that there are conservatives out there who are considering staying home on Election Day or are tempted to write in Ron Paul or vote for Gary Johnson. I understand where they are coming from, I know their disappointment, I voted for Rick Santorum in the primary.  But I earnestly suggest to them that halting radicalism with pragmatism is not a concession of conservative principle, it is the only viable thing we can do at the moment to save the country.

This is not an election about the competing political philosophies of conservatism and liberalism. This is an election of survival. Voting for Romney is making a calculated bet on the boundaries of pragmatism rather than risking further experience with the expanding horizons of radicalism.