[ansel12]

3. The rational majority who have misgivings because of his rather sparse political record, which includes his failure to distance himself from the health care fuster cluck in Massachusetts.

Romney actually has a lot of revealing political history, many of us that recognize the need to stop Romney know that his politics are well known, because we have looked at who he was politically, even long before he became the failed governor of Massachusetts.

Romney was in his mid fifties when he finally won an office, but we have a long history of anticonservative politics and outspokenness before that, including leaving the republican party because of Reagan, and donating to and fund raising for, democrats, during the early Clinton administration, while the rest of us were preparing for the famous 1994 victory of the republicans.

[Vigilanteman]

You may have a point, but the problem is that the stark raving mad bigoted moonbats in category one are so loud they tend to drown out the more rational people in category three.

That being said, I see Romney as little more than a placeholder for the Bush family, who also has a long history of supporting anticonservative causes. That isn't to say that the Bush family is evil or part of some "Skull and Bones" conspiracy, just to point out that they still haven't gotten far enough away from their Thomas Dewey patrician New England roots. The same can be said about the Romney family, albeit to a lesser extent.

However, I don't hate either one and still think that while Dewey, Bush and Romney were not and are not great conservative choices, they were and are still far, far better than FDR-Truman/Dukakis-Gore-Kerry/ObaMa-Hillary.