I’d take Romney over Paul.
I don’t give a damn about the Mormon stuff. I think Mormonism is largely a cult, and some otherwise good people have gotten caught up in it. I’ll judge Romney on Romney ... not on generic Mormonism.
Romney tells you what you want to hear. He believes what you want him to believe. He is a slave to his popularity, which means he’ll listen to his voters when we think he’s wrong. I’d rather he be instinctively right ... but I don’t think he has it in him.
Paul is an ideologue. If he’s wrong, he’ll go down in flames in his wrongness ... and he’ll take us down with him. And, he’s wrong a LOT. His foreign policy is a catastrophe.
I’d prefer an ideologue that’s right over a finger-to-the-wind politician. But, I’ll take a finger-to-the-wind politician over an ideologue that’s wrong.
SnakeDoc
That is how you pick your candidates? Romney is a lifelong, dedicated, anti-conservative, from that same kind of family.
Romney was with his father in 1964 when they stormed off the convention floor to protest against Goldwater and conservatives. Romney's father ran as the anti-conservative, anti-war Presidential candidate in 1968, his mother was the pro-choice liberal Senate candidate of 1970.
Romney himself was an Independent during Reagan and did not vote for him, Romney came to support only democrats and even fund raised for Planned Parenthood. Romney was anti-"Jesse Helms type Senators", and against the Contract with America.
Only 1 our of 4 Judges that Romney appointed were even republicans.
Romney is a dedicated, believing, liberal, who hates the right, and conservatives, he lies to the right, to you, not to the left.
Repeat: A Paul win in Virginia will not give Paul the Nomination. A Romney win will push Mitt right along. (View it as voting against Mitt, an "ABM" vote.)