You can’t win the Presidency by just appealing to the staunchest conservatives in your own party. You have to be able to appeal to both moderates *and* your own party.
Mitt is the only candidate who both: (a) appeals to moderates (as evidenced by his ability to win in Massachusetts), and (b) has a history of governing with policies that are in alignment with conservatives.
If you ignore for one minute the things coming out of the mouths of each of the top three *declared* candidates, and instead focus on how they actually governed while holding elected office, then Mitt is easily the most conservative of the bunch (Giuliani, McCain, and Romney).
BTW—Mitt *said* the right things to get elected Governor in Massachusetts, but governed in a manner that really pizzed off the social liberals up in that state. To me, that speaks volumes about his conservative credentials.
Rasmussen Poll, read it.
Not sure what planet this group is on.
A flip-flopping liar, then. Maybe he *says* he's no longer a baby killer just to get your vote?
I agree with the very last part of that, but I can’t see how being the smartest one of the Three Stooges equals anything close to a win.
The Reagan democrats switched parties over God,Guns,and Gays and those are the things Romney catered to the Mass moonbats on.
You have to first be able to rally the Republican base in the red states before crossover dem votes mean anything.
If any of the so called top three win the nomination we will lose in a landslide in the general election.