Actually, I was celebrating progress, not so much who won the damn election. I could give two flying dinos who's president or which side wins, all I care about is them forward marching us towards social equality for all. And until Republicans put up someone who's socially/morally/ethically bankrupt, then I'm putting on my damn party hat when Democrats win some seats or the Presidency.
First off, you edited "socially/morally/ethically bankrupt" to "socially/morally/ethically moderate". In repeated previews, I noticed that you truncated even more of your original post.
I will respond to your original post.
Second: This is an instance of the problem I'm talking about. I think there's a big jump from "disagreeing with Romney's morals" to "morally bankrupt" and I don't know how you're making that jump. Nor do I think it's productive.
I do not agree with some of Romney's policies; I made some arguments against his energy policy in a previous thread, for example. I don't think, however, that attacks on his character really get us anywhere.
If you're referring to comments made by i.e. Todd Akin on "legitimate rape", then yes, those were some bizarre comments, and probably don't speak well of him. I don't think, however, that they are relevant
If or when he attempts to introduce policy that reflects a "legitimate rape" philosophy, that policy can be challenged (and likely shot down). Repeated attempts to introduce such policy can be taken as evidence that Akin (or whoever) is serving as a poor representative, as he is introducing policy that is not in the best interest of the nation. (That's actually a tricky thing to define; sometimes "best interest" hurts. In this particular case, though, the answer is less fuzzy.)