[Jeff Head]

Who ya gonna believe?

I myself have listened to Mitt. He was not my 1st or 2nd choice...but I have listened to his explanations of his changes, and watched how he has handled himself.

I have also studied his record and feel that if one is objective that he is the most conservative of those left. Clearly, there are those with a real agenda and vendetta against him and they have every right to voice their opinions as well. But I have the oblogation to look at them all objectively too.

I have done so and am willing to do theChristian thing with Mitt and give him the benefit of the doubt. I would rather have seen more time go by, and would certainly have rather seen Thompson as the candidate, and Hunter before him. But now, of those left standing (or leaning as one wise FReeper noted), I will go with Romney.

[presidio9]

But now, of those left standing (or leaning as one wise FReeper noted), I will go with Romney.

That's about where I am now. It is also where Rush and Laura Ingraham seem to be leaning.

I think Romney/Thompson would beat all comers.

[streetpreacher]

I hate to be in this position again, but here I am voting for one candidate to stop another: McCain.

Besides that, Romney is running on a more conservative platform than Bush ever did.

McCain means President Hillary because I, and many others I believe, will stay home.

[mcjordansc]

Who changes their position on abortion when they are in their 50s? Romney obviously held a pro-choice position when it was to his advantage when running for Gov in MA. Now he is pro-life because he needs to be to win the Republican nomination. What is he really? I don’t know. But no one can tell me a 50 something man had a change of heart on the abortion issue.

[fish hawk]

You have just expressed my exact feelings. We are in the same boat. Romney also appeals to me as a very smart business man as apposed to people like, say, Ted Kennedy who has sucked off of politics his whole life and never made a payroll or run a business. Or Hillary who has sucked off her husband (no pun intended) and is shouting about Obamas lack of experience when her only experience is being a crooked lawyer and the wife of a crooked politician.

[Lauren BaRecall]

Doing the Christian thing with Mitt Romney may not be giving him the benefit of the doubt.

You should see this group's website and commercial

[gondramB]

>>Who ya gonna believe?

I myself have listened to Mitt. He was not my 1st or 2nd choice...but I have listened to his explanations of his changes, and watched how he has handled himself. <<

You make a good point. As Freepers are tempted to fight or criticize each other it is good to remember that many of us are now talking about who our third choice should be - of course they are imperfect and there are reasons they were not our first choice.

I happen to have a different third choice than you do but that is no reason for us attack each other - it would be so much better if we could just talk about what conservative priorities should be.

[Theo]

You’re right. We’re left with either crap or vomit. I suppose voting for vomit is the best option at this point.

[Twink]

Same here. Romney is the only choice between him and McCain, imo. I think they’re all RINOS (Mitt, McCain, Rudy, etc.). I wish Hunter and Thompson were still in the race but they’re not and I’d rather see Romney win the nom and go to the general. I’d rather see Romney as President than McCain or any of the dems.

[incindiary]

It's not just one issue. He has gone back and forth and equivocated on a number of issues. How can you support someone who was for strict gun control and backed the Brady Bill?

And in regard to abortion, he may call it a "conversion", but that is what happens when you go from one side to the other. In his case, it was not just one flip. It was a flip and a flop and another flip and flop. He has gone back and forth on it. To me, that sounds less like a conversion (like that of Norma McCorvey or Dr. Bernard Nathanson) and more like political expediency.

He also clearly has a problem with being honest. And has told numerous lies or "mistatements", on important things like Mormonism, and small things like hunting.

On top of his liberal history and tendency to not be honest, he is also aligned with the CFR. Do we really want another globalist who will continue us on the path of the destruction of our sovereignty? How can a true patriot, in good conscience support someone who appears to be another globalist Rockefeller Republican?

If it was one thing alone, like his switch on abortion, I could understand your point. But it is numerous things, and most importantly, his character. Yes, I know that none of us are perfect. But there's a difference between being merely human, and being habitually dishonest and unprincipled. You said you would do the Christian thing and give him the benefit of the doubt. We were also told to be as wise as serpents and harmless as doves. And to beware of wolves in sheep's clothing.

I know that I can't make people do anything. But I could never vote for any of the status-quo candidates. Dr. Paul is the only one who is true to the constitution and the people, and the only one who isn't sold out to other interests and globalism.

Please watch this video, this one and the links above before you jump too far into the Mitt bandwagon.

[Blogger]

I see Mitt’s position evolving towards the good side and pray that God grips his heart and makes the total change necessary. He is still a bit wobbly in some important areas. I wish he were even stronger on life. But, he is stronger now than John McCain who is gung ho for embryonic stem cell research. Mitt’s not perfect there, but is much closer to a true right to life position there.

[bmwcyle]

It is so nice to see someone who thinks around here.