A litmus test I think we can get behind

I’m not a fan of “litmus-tests” or “deal-breakers” when choosing my favorite candidate for president. For example: “Candidate X voted YES on legislation Y. That’s a deal-breaker for me, so I’m not supporting Mr. X.” Frankly, such hard-line pronouncements are generally unrealistic. They fail to account for the fact that no candidate is perfect. Every candidate with any meaningful history is likely to have done something, sometime in the past, that disappoints you. We conservatives are better than that: we accept reality as it is, even as we try to make it better.

I’m going to make an exception. For the 2012 election, there’s one test I think all conservatives can get behind.

Every one of the seven remaining top-tier candidates for the Republican nomination is infinitely better than the man currently in the Oval Office. For that matter, every person who has ever been considered for the Republican nomination is better than Obama. Hell, just about anybody in the PHONE BOOK of any large city in the United States is better!

So here is my litmus test: if a candidate is unwilling to say flatly that he or she will endorse and actively support the eventual nominee from the Republican Party – whoever that turns out to be – then I’m writing them off. There is no room for nuance here. I’m not going to be tolerant of any candidate who threatens (or even hints at) a third-party run or otherwise implies that their support may not be forthcoming if the “right” nominee does not win the primary. Such threats only make it measurably easier for Obama to win a second term which the country simply cannot afford.

What do you say – can we conservatives get behind this litmus test?