It’s not as bad as it sounds, mostly because they don’t really mean it. There’s a lot of hyperbole during election cycles. They’d rather have him over some people but most likely none of them is in the Republican primaries.

It also means that the worst proposals of those running are proposals they consider better than President Obama’s proposals. Again, though, they usually haven’t actually studied those proposals, or his. They’ve made up their minds he’s bad and anyone not him must be relatively good. When push comes to shove, they look more closely.

Further, many of them will vote for those candidates they think would have a better chance in the general election, believing them better than the status quo. It beats saying, “I won’t vote for any because I disapprove of something each candidate said or did.”

It’s a way of saying they hope for change and can stomach some imperfections in expected possible replacements.

David for better candidates

And yet President Obama has never said so, nor does he do the things of Muslims, such as eschew bacon or pray five times a day, or take multiple wives like former Speaker Gingrich.

David for fried bacon
and other artery hardeners

Maybe I’m reading your post wrong. Are you saying somebody who thinks that morals and principles are important should be voting for Newt? Or are you saying the religous bigots should be voting against Romney?

Strange bed fellows this election cycle has created. Strange, indeed.