In the rush to praise Romney, everybody talks about how "hard" it was for him to go against his party.
No.
It wasn't hard at all. The only thing that could make it hard is if there is the default assumption that party should come before country.
No.
Party never comes before country. I understand that we're all human and that there are difficult votes where you have conflicting values. Where what you want to be and what you know is required of you are at odds. For example, I find the Boy Scouts' policy regarding gay members and atheist members to be reprehensible. But, I also value the freedom of association so when they were sued, I agree that they should be allowed to restrict their membership as they choose and that they are not a public accommodation.
Emotionally, it's hard for me to fight for people's right to discriminate. But politically and philosophically, it's easy. If I want my rights, I need to recognize others'.
Thus, I also feel that the BSA then gets to reap the rewards of that policy: Just as they have no obligation to accommodate everyone who wishes to join, nobody else is under any obligation to accommodate them. Thus, when they sued because various municipalities no longer wished to provide them sweetheart deals to use public property, too bad. These rights go both ways. You don't get to brag about your "values" and then complain when others find them reprehensible. The government's interest in promoting equality gives them every right not to give those who make bigotry a foundational tenet preferential treatment. They still must allow them to use public assets appropriately, but they can insist on full fare.
So what, precisely, was "hard" for Romney in this decision? The evidence is clear: Trump did it. He's proud he did it. He provided no witnesses to exonerate him, no documents to provide context, no defense of any kind. So what possible difficulty could there be in voting to remove him from office?
Party before country.
And if that's the value that's in conflict before your duty to carry out impartial justice that you swore to do under oath, then you are a horrible person and you get no praise for doing the right thing. The philosophical conundrum surrounding Trump's actions is trivial to resolve. There is nothing hard about it. If you find it hard, you are incompetent and need to be removed from office yourself.
Does Romney deserve praise for his vote?
No.
It's good that he did it, but you don't get a cookie for doing the obviously, trivially right thing.