[rogue yam]

You're cruisin' for a bruisin' if your man Mitt gets into office and betrays conservatives given all the ample evidence that he has in the past governed solely out of political expediency.

You're not getting away with anything but admitting you were wrong if and when that happens.

I have never claimed that a Pres. Romney would govern in any way other than that which is politically expedient.

It is the Mitt haters who predict that Romney will pursue an ideological agenda if elected President.

[Kazan]

I have never claimed that a Pres. Romney would govern in any way other than that which is politically expedient.

And, that and the fallout from that (Republicans losing Congress and, ultimately, the White House with another Obama taking over) is better than alternative (a growing Republican majority in Congress and a chance to elect someone like Scott Walker in 2016)?

You've learned nothing from two failed Bush Presidencies. Or do you go all the way back to Nixon? He was total failure as well.

[Sirius Lee]

It is the Mitt haters who predict that Romney will pursue an ideological agenda if elected President.

Rather it's the melodramatic little nancys who claim that mitt's gay, anti-gun agenda isn't ideological. Some of these rump-rangers are actually so Stalinist as to make lists and post them on forums where their fellow mittbot losers hang out.

[svcw]

Romney is NOT president, please stop referring to him as such.
Romney governed as a liberal, he has lived his life as a liberal, how anyone could beleive he would be different as a possible president, is mind boggling.