That describes DeDe Scozafossa perfectly. And Gingrich endorsed her, not in 2008 against two even less conservative candidates, but in an election against a solid tea-party conservative candidate who was pushed out of the republican nomination by a "rigged" convention vote.
So if you were being truthful that no person who endorsed such a candidate could be conservative, you would be condemning your candidate.
Meanwhile, I know that the popular and only accepted view here about Romney is as you describe. But solely in terms of what the candidate was SAYING and PROMISING in 2008, Romney was none of those things. Romney supporters were not basing their support on history, but on promises and hopeful thinking (or wishful thinking, or delusional thinking, if you want to be uncharitable) -- the hope that Romney would govern as he said he would during the election. I'm not here to debate whether that was a good hope or a bad hope, or in fact to defend that concept at all. This is offered to explain why many conservatives, including Santorum, Herman Cain, Jim DeMint, and Paul Weyrich; and why virtually all the top conservative talk-show hosts backed Romney over McCain, once we were into the Florida Primary. They were not throwing off their conservative principles -- they were trying to make the best of a bad situation. Judging strictly by history, none of our candidates were good, and Romney was the worst. Judging by promises made during the campaign, Romney was the best. Elections are crappy compromises, because the good people almost never run, so instead we pretend that whoever IS running ARE the good ones.
DUH!! Not for president but an area in upstate NY! Surely, you can still make that distinction - in spite your closed eyes to truth
Judging by promises made during the campaign, Romney was the best.
ONLY idiots listen to promises from a known liar and one with Romney record. Seems you guys have learned nothing and are doing it again w/Rick!