If I could say anything about today's election in which I cannot vote, I would ask people simply to think before they vote. Regardless of what anyone says or thinks about McCain, I wish they would reconsider the logic of saying that because he is bad, his opponent must therefore be good.

The Anchoress (who is torn about how to vote) has the best post on the subject I have seen:

McCain is not my first or second choice, and there are some legitimate concerns about his temperament and his manner, but he also has some strengths and I am tired of opening my email to hysterics suggesting that America will end if McCain gets the nomination. I’m tired of turning on talk radio and hearing - nonstop, day after day - lecturing about what a terrible man McCain is, and why I should not vote for him.

It is significant to me that no one is telling me why I SHOULD vote for Romney. No one is telling me how great he is, and giving me a reason to want to vote for him. They’re just telling me “McCain is bad!”

So, I’m asking:

How is Romney “good?” Why should I vote for him?

As I've said before, I don't see much difference in the overall political positions of these two men (if we look at them over the years). But it should be remembered that issues change. Today's key issue might be forgotten tomorrow, and today's flipflop might be tomorrow's sea change in public opinion.

I think that by the standards of conservative ideologues today, both men are RINOs. The difference is that Romney "cleans up better."

This is not surprising. The fact is, Romney just looks better to begin with. As I said late last night, he looks like a gentleman. More presidential.

But I think McCain is tougher, and has a much thicker skin.

Sometimes core traits are more important than appearances.

I admit, right now I slightly prefer McCain. He wasn't my first choice, or my second choice. That could change between now and April 22, when I'm finally allowed to vote. But the anti-McCain clamor has done nothing to convince me of the merits of Romney.

Moreover, Romney himself has done little to convince me of the merits of Romney. Quite the opposite. The other day I heard Romney's interview on the Glenn and Helen podcast, and I was favorably impressed. I wanted to believe what he said, and I saw no reason not to. Then I learned that what Romney said about the assault weapons ban was a flat out lie, as it contradicted what he'd said two weeks earlier. It's one thing to change your mind on something years later, or even when you're running for office, but really.

One position for Meet the Press, and another for the blogosphere?

I know I can't read Mitt Romney's mind, but I want to ask, which of these contradictory Second Amendment positions should be given more weight? The one he gave Tim Russert, or the one he gave on the Glenn and Helen podcast? Considering that these were contemporaneous statements in terms of the campaign time frame, I suspect he would consider the statement given on national television to be more dispositive of his "true" position.

But then, why lie to Glenn and Helen? Might Romney think less of the podcast medium? Or might he think bloggers are just inherently less worthy of respect?

What does the real Mitt Romney think, and how am I to know? Bear in mind that I haven't run around and looked for Romney contradictions, prevarications, or flipflops, but I ran right into this purely by accident because I happened to hear the podcast, and naturally, I believed him, for why would he go out of his way to lie on one of the leading blog podcasts?

If I find something like this when I'm not even looking for it, naturally I'm wondering what else there might be.

I don't expect to hear about it from the people who are busily and obsessively faulting McCain, but I don't understand what that has to translate into uncritical acceptance of Romney.

MORE: Victor Davis Hanson (who prefers McCain but who would vote for Romney in the general election) is hearing from the McCain haters:

....so far today I have gotten the usual daily spam e-mail from various fringe and self-acclaimed conservative groups and personages -- variously alleging that McCain was not a real war hero, questioning his conduct during capture, commenting on his marital situation, and suggesting he was unhinged and identical to Ted Kennedy, Hillary (fill in the blanks). I think for most the level of vituperation is astounding and completely unforeseen.

I have no idea of whether the moderates that McCain would pick up will be outweighed by the conservatives who sit our or vote for the Democratic candidate. Nor do I have any notion of how many McCain supporters -- and this is never discussed- will be so turned off by the present assault on their candidate that they would likewise sit out if Romney won.

Of course, the same can be said about Romney supporters who sit it out. If you are a member of any party and you don't vote for the party's candidate, in simple logic, you are a member of the party in name only.

What I can't figure out is what gives those who sit it out the moral right to accuse the ones who don't sit it out of being RINOs?

This Republican purity stuff sure is complicated.

But I'm so used to it that I guess I could easily go back to being an impure Democrat.