[supercat]

I thought the anti-Rudies want a true blue conservative, not a flip-flopper. Besides, although Romney is my 3rd choice, with his name recognition he can barely get himself out of single digits.

Mitt Romney is courting the vote of conservatives. If he becomes President, I wouldn't expect him to stab in the back the conservatives he's going to need in 2012.

I'll admit it's certainly possible he could abandon conservatives once elected, figuring that that name recognition would allow him to win in 2012 even without their votes, but the risk of that happening is less worrisome than the near certainty that a candidate who is more interested in chasing liberals' votes rather than earning conservatives' votes will run even further left once elected.

I know McCain is unacceptably bad (McCain-Feingold, among other things). I know that Rudy is unacceptably bad (gun lawsuits; sanctuary city policies). Of the people who would seem to have any chance at all, Romney is the only one who is even marginally acceptable, and he seems like he might actually be fairly decent.

[Gop1040]

Are you saying Romney's really running for 2012? Speaking about counting your apples before picking them, that's ludicrous. First impressions are everything. Rudy's is 9/11 and NYC turnaround. Romney's is flipping positions on several social issues to sway conservatives. He's not going to shake that image easily. That's why I have him 3rd on my list. And exact what is it that makes you say Rudy is more likely to back-stab than Romney.

The question to be asked regarding Romney and Rudy is who would you want to be in a fox hole with? Someone who says they'll believe what you want them to believe, or someone who say what he believes but will respect your beliefs?