kevkrom wrote: “The Romney supporters have been particularly vicious, and from early on, as their only hope is for Romney to be considered “conservative” compared to Giuliani and McCain.”
There’s nothing the slightest bit conservative about Rudy McRombee so long as you ignore their recent conversions (which happened about the same time as their presidential aspirations). That some conservatives, who generally tend to be critical thinkers, believe they are going to get smaller government and/or fiscal conservatism (the two go hand in hand) from Rudy McRombee is amazing.
I think McCain is already out of the race for all intents and purposes, and Hunter, to be realistic (unless he experiences a miracle), is equally out. I believe Huckabee is, too. That leaves Rudy and Romney as the Liberal Republicans to be avoided. Looking at his record, it seems pretty obvious to me that Romney is as risky as Rudy, and in a way, maybe even more risky in terms of increased nanny government he will charm the Ladies into embracing with his good looks, upstanding family "values," and Righteous Sugar Daddy persona. Hmmm .. I wonder ... if women didn't have the vote (and I'm female, folks) ... would Romney even stand a chance? (And what does that say about Hugh Hewitt!! *ooooh ... that was mean and catty! Meow! ... sorry Hugh!*)
Anyhoo, when I read posts that focus on Rudy as the worst-case Republican scenario, I find myself thinking ... Romney is EQUALLY worst-case. It's as important to beat Romney as it is to beat Rudy in the primaries. CLEARLY Fred Thompson, is the best bet for limited government, states' rights, and personal freedom, which is THE BEST WAY to achieve a moral society.