Replies

Having a direct hand in expanding socialism, thousands of abortions, and trampling on the 2nd amendment under the guise of "well it's states rights!" doesn't fly if you're a so-called conservative.

You haven't dealt with the ninth or tenth amendments or the Founders' concept of dual federalism via this argument, you've merely employed the invective.

There is a case for the electorate foisting upon the next President a Congress with two bodies WELL to the right of WHOEVER is elected President...I think if we did that, it would "pull along" a President who has a tendency to drift toward the middle...

You're right, we can do better, but it has to start with getting rid of Hussein. I frankly think there are better choices than Romney, just as I thought there were better choice than McAmenesty in 2008.

But even if McInsane were elected in 2008, I can guaran-damn-tee you, we would not have passed a $1 Trillion dollar slush fund for unions or Obamacare.

Politics is the art of the possible, and it is rarely (if EVER) the art of the perfect.

A so-called conservative would NEVER proudly introduce socialism as an option on any level of government. He's still proud of what he has done. You're telling me the ONLY option he had was the monstrosity that is RomneyCare? The law that has bankrupted Mass and that uses tax dollars to fund abortions? Ha! He could have handled that problem in a conservative way, not by expanding government, taxes, and red tape for the people of Mass. But he is no conservative. It's what he wanted to do.

I, and the majority of people in the Republican party, vote based on values. Not solely based on an (R) next to a name. Socialism wasn't in our Founder's vision of America. Period. Killing innocent children for a $50 co-pay wasn't in their vision. Everyone has a right to life. Banning guns wasn't in their vision. That should not be infringed upon. How about standing up for THOSE words used by our Founders? You've got to take a deep look into your values if you think the things he did in Mass are okay at any level. To think he'd actually leave everything to the states is a JOKE!!! Those were his values, before being governor and AS governor. He appointed gay activist to the Mass supreme court. He willfully did many liberal things. Because he is a liberal.

His "states rights" excuse is a talking point, plain & simple. Romney will be responsible for appointing judges at a federal level. He'll be responsible for a lot of things at a federal level. We need someone who will stand up for conservatism. Romney bent over to liberals in Mass and he'll bend over to liberals in Congress.

And if he wins the nomination, I promise you he will NOT win the general election. Only a solid conservative would beat Obama in a landslide. America is tired of socialism and Romney's record is covered in it.

It's the same song & dance the media gave us with McCain, Dole, etc. They always push RINOs in the primaries. Not only will Romney not attract swing voters (ask yourself, why would ANYONE vote for a candidate with no solid principles?), but the conservative base will also stay home. There are simply more people who vote based on values than there are "holding my nose to vote" people. He WILL lose if "we" nominate him.