Advise you check Romney’s record on appointing judges.
I just did, and it's kind of 'oogie'. Pro Rom sites cut him a lot of slack, anti-Rom let him have it on the pro-gay appointments. Pro Rom gave the feeling that he was working with the Left in Mass. so any non-conservative appointments were likely due to liberalness inherent to the Northeast in general. Anti Rom indicated his lack of concern over picks- especially at the end of his term where many were left (unusually) vacant.
In all, it wouldn't be an understatement to say that his 'conservatism' is a bit muddy. Which contradicts what one might suppose from one whose religion forbids smoking, drinking, and caffeine.
As a Californian familiar with Arnold Swartchenagger (sp?) it comes as no surprise that a Mass governor would be any less conservative than Arnold. Both states stink-on-ice when it comes to liberty.
In fact, if it were Arnold instead of Mitt running and leading in the primary I would have to tell those voting that they are not about to vote for a conservative.
In some way, I stand corrected and in others, I do not. Romney would likely nominate justices who are doubtful when it comes to conservatism and the constitution in general whereas, Obama would nominate those such as his wise-ass Latina and gay Jewess to include perverts with hostilities toward our constitution as one can only imagine.
That Free Republic would not greet Romney with open arms is understandable. He is not a conservative. He is from Mass. He can't be. Any more than Arnold from California could be.
House and Senate, house and senate. This could be the last voice of the people.