I was pointing out that there were many conservatives who were standing behind candidates that had long dropped out of the race instead of getting behind a Romney when there was the chance. Well, that is just it. Romney wasn't a Conservative candidate to rally around the first or second time - because he wasn't a Conservative on issues like abortion, gun control, "gay" rights, and judges.
Then, he spun like top trying to tell us all he was endorsed by the NRA (not true), was now pro-life (un huh), and didn't really mean to appoint lesbian activists to the bench (DIGNITY USA).
We didn't believe him - and the MittBots went off on us for not swallowing the NyQuil.
If you all want to play this game - we can say you didn't get behind Hunter, Thompson, or Tancredo early and it is all your fault.
But what is the point now?
If you all want to play this game - we can say you didn't get behind Hunter, Thompson, or Tancredo Oh, I agree. Romney was like the 3rd or 4th from the bottom of my list. McCain and Ron Paul being the last 2 on my list. I mentioned Romney only because he was the most recent and last standing republican before McCain. This problem is not in FR. FR is just a good way to measure where we conservatives stand nationwide. When Hunter dropped out those Hunter supporters continued to stand behind Hunter instead of getting behind Tancredo or Thompson. When Tancredo stepped down the Tancredo supporters refused to vote for a "liberal" like Thompson. My point is, instead of going and standing behind another conservative still in the race many continued to rally around conservatives already dropped out as if they were in some kind of denial. Fred Thompson (or the next conservative in line still in the race) could have used those votes.