[Happy Rain]

Mitt is anti-amnesty for illegals (so he says) but a liberal while Rubio is pro-amnesty for illegals (so he says) but a conservative.

I think both can be persuaded to act conservative on the issue and I fear if we get too nit picky Mitt will go Pawlenty, Rice or Christie and then we get four more years of the brown Bolshevik.

[LibLieSlayer]

mitt will pick someone that will fit into his ideology and your wishes and our outrage will mean absolutely nothing to romney.

LLS

[LibLieSlayer]

mitt will pick someone that will fit into his ideology and your wishes and our outrage will mean absolutely nothing to romney.

LLS

[SharpRightTurn]

“Mitt is anti-amnesty for illegals (so he says) but a liberal while Rubio is pro-amnesty for illegals (so he says) but a conservative. I think both can be persuaded to act conservative on the issue and I fear if we get too nit picky Mitt will go Pawlenty, Rice or Christie and then we get four more years of the brown Bolshevik.”

You make a very logical argument.

I agree that Rubio is preferable to Pawlenty, Rice, and Christie. Rubio does express opposition to continued deficit spending and I assume he is more conservative on tax and spending issues than the other three.

But what would prevent Romney from nominating DeMint, Mike Lee, or Rand Paul? Are they too conservative for him or is the problem that they are not from swing states?

I am sick of having weak immigration Republicans in high office. Why not just farm out our border control to the Chamber of Commerce?