Mike Huckabee is a much stronger candidate.

Mitt Romney spent millions of dollars and had the best organization and still came up short because he is a faux conservative. Was pro-choice, pro-Brady, pro-gay marriage etc. when he wanted to be Governor of Mass. Suddenly got "conservative religion" when it was time to run for President on the Republican ticket.

Mike Huckabee addresses McCain's weaknesses. He carries the South. He has executive experience, he is an economic conservative from outside Washington, and he speaks to the values voter and draws the young and the black conservative vote. If Hillary manages to alienate the Black vote from the Democratic party, Huckabee will be standing there waiting to catch them. He received a large percentage of the Black vote in AK.

As a values voter...Romney is unacceptable. If McCain chooses him as his VP, I will choose to write-in Huckabee's name on my ballot not vote for McCain.

Here's the question: Is McCain's ego so swollen that he's not willing to do the right thing by the party and choose someone like Romney who would clearly help the party on economic issues? My guess is that McCain will not do the right thing by the party -- with McCain, after all, it's all about him, and never about his party. And he hates Romney and couldn't slam him enough at every debate where he got a chance. And so while McCain's supporters are out there telling conservatives to swallow their many concerns about McCain and vote for him for the good of the party, when is McCain going to be asked to meet the same standard and swallow his own pride/ego and do the right thing by the party for once in the last 10 years?

In response to Lynn's comments... I'm surprised you're not more familiar with Romney's positions. Romney was pro-choice. Af for the Brady Bill, it would now be different because of how quickly background checks can be done so to say he's pro-Brady makes him sound like he wants long waiting periods for gun owners. Background checks can now be done immediately so a gun law like the Brady bill would look different with the advances in Technologies. But most of all.. Romney was NEVER pro-gay marriage. Where you're getting this information is flawed. Gov. Romney has ALWAYS been against gay marriage.

Huckabee is a social conservative but he's liberal everywhere else.

I think Lynn, like her guy huckaflee, is possibly an illegal alien on her 15 minute break.

Lynn, you are misinformed on Huckabee. I did like Mike in the beginning. However after looking into his history in Arkansas and his lack of self-disipline, I feel he is a good man that should remain an entertainer and preacher. Thank goodness the GOP is better informed. I was also offended how Huckabee was trying to hitch a ride on the back of Christ in this primary, to get the Christian vote. If you want a man of true virtue, high morals, pristine character, a committed love of God, family and country it is Mitt Romney. He is also a brilliant and successful man that is running on those qualities. Please check out any books, or personal data on him. He is STELLAR and walks his talk. He is a man our Children and our country can admire. God Bless

I agree with Lynn. Huckabee is the obvious, only REAL choice for the VP. He "fills in the blanks" nicely for McCain. 10 1/2 yrs. executive experience, early 50's, strength of character same as McCain. Huckabee's calm, genial temperament compliments McCain's feisty one. Huckabee got almost all the southern states and he can pull in the youth, black, conservative and evngelical votes. He has proven himself in this campaign to be a fighter and to always be consistent. We know what we have got with McCain and with Huckabee. The two genuinely like and admire each other and it shows. Even the media picked up on the "campaign trail chemistry" between McCain and Huckabee. We need our team to mesh like "pantyhose" to contrast the Democrats who are tearing each other apart. McCain and Huckabee can play off each other well. And America Hearts Huckabee, even the democrats. He could get some democrats over to the Republican side. I would not vote for a ticket with Romney on it. Visit youtube.com Romney Kennedy debate 1994 to see why.

Are you all blind ? Romney nearly destroyed his own state of Massachusetts in his 1 term as Governor. They didn't even want him back. He signed a mandatory universal healthcare bill with abortion for just $50.

Not to mentioned that he made a lot of people mad in the primaries this year because of his confrontational nature. Both he and John McCain hate each other, they both can't stand the sight of each other.

Furthermore, Romney pulled a lot of unethical tactics the week before Super Tuesday. If he gets the VP, which I highly doubt McCain will give him that considering he will jepardize the independent vote, you can also say goodbye to most of the social conservatives.

It would not be in John McCain's best interest if he wants a shot at winning to not consider Mitt Romney. We have had enough of the carpetbagger.

You guys seemed to forget that it was Huckabee who carried the Southern States during Super Tuesday. Romney came in last on all the Southern States. Huckabee did this despite being spent 20-1 by Romney. Yeah good luck with Romney in the ticket in the SOuth. The Democrats would love nothing better than to attack that flip-flopper. You guys remember that on January Romney said he wasn't interested in being McCain's nominee:

Romney: I won't be McCain's VP
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/01/28/romney-i-won%e2%80%99t-be-mccain%e2%80%99s-vp/

Who when running for president does not turn down the prospect of being the others VP? Duh! just look at the posturing that Clinton and Obama are doing now...........people dont be so naive. as for the "flip Flopping" that worthless argument is used for anyone you dont like.......face it you don't like Romeny for whatever reason, but to say he above all the rest is a flip flop is so rediculous as they all have changed or repositioned themselves....look at Mccain...he was against the Bush Tax cuts now he is for them etc. etc.......they all reposition themselves. and if you really did look into Romney's past you would see what the guy stands for........but this is the deal you dont like the guy so whatever he or anyone says wont change your closed mind.........

and as for the brillant comment about Massachusetts being destroyed by Romeny, yeah what another smart comment, is that why he won the state in the primaries? Did you even notice any state he has lived or worked in he WON.....Utah, Michigan and Mass........so if he was such a failure why would those who know him best continue to support him..........open up your mind people and get past your baseless objections to a guy who would do more good for this country than any other person running now!!!

Forgot to point something out to "Chuck" the south votes Republican, Huckabee does not bring anything else to the table...........he is a not he did not even beat Ronmey in delegate count and Mitt dropped from the race weeks ago.........so dont tell us about being in last place, had Mitt stayed in there there wouldn't have been much about Mike in the press........Huckabee should stay on the talk show circut down in the Cayman Islands.

If McCain picks Huckabee he is guranteed to lose
McCain is self-admitted to be weak on economic matters. The next President is likely to be faced with a serious economic downturn that will require a clear understanding of how jobs are created in the Global Economic Era. Mitt Romney has been a very successful Venture Capitalist responsible for such successful businesses as Staples. Romney has been the governor of a state with a leading-edge knowledge-driven economy.

Few economic-focused conservatives {i.e. entrepreneurs} are very happy with McCain to begin with, and his signing onto Algore�s GreenHouseGas Hype, and his failure to understand the reality of the energy situation and the need to aggressively expl;orea and produce oil an gas in North America has just made him less desirable -- Huckabee is at least as questionable on economic matters, if not worse.

As for the argument that Huckabee carried the South -- Since 1964 if the Republican Presidential candidate can't carry the South on his own -- there is no chance for the GOP. The remaining question should be -- could Huckabee bring some state in the Northeast into play? If you think Huckabee would be beneficial to the ticket in the Northeast, or in California, given his fundamentalist views on the origin of life and such matters -- you've got to be kidding.

Finally, because of McCain�s age and medical history -- you have to think of President McCain as a one-termer -- I can't imagine a President Huckabee and I doubt that many serious conservatives could.

If not Romney -- then clearly not Hickabee

Joe, your off base, your WAY off base. For one, Huckabee has already secured second place over Mitt Romney. 267 to 255 if I recall, so that argument was null and void the moment the March 4th primaries hit.

Secondly, Why did Mitt Romney narrowly won Mass. ? Mike Huckabee carried his home state, winning by 40%, McCain won his home state by nearly 12%, But Mitt only won by 10% ? And why wasn't he reelected as governor ?

The only states Mitt Romney won were lightly contested states, with the exception of Mass. and Michigan, both BLUE states ? If Mike Huckabee had dropped out, McCain would have sweeped the south due to the fact that Mitt Romney and his camp had spit forth such venom towards Huckabee ? Not to mention the HIGHLY unethical tricks Mitt pulled before Super Tuesday. Your Argument has been shot out of the water.

The south knows a carpetbagger when they see one. We have had enough of Mitt Flip.

http://buckeyegop.proboards45.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1205334687
The top ten reasons why Mitt would be a useful addition to the McCain ticket.

http://buckeyegop.proboards45.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1204048503
The numbers showing how Mitt helps Mac more than Huck.

Preacher Huckabee will go down in history as someone who was crass enough to use the religion card which was a big no-no! The foreign policy and economic conservatives would go bonkers if McCain picked Huckabee to be on the ticket as his veep. Like Mitt said of Hillary and Obama, Huckabee is the third chihuahua, McCain's yappy dog. Barf! John McCain, with Mitt Romney on the ticket, you will get the White House!

Mitt Romney is the elite version of "sleeze"...
He WAS pro-abortion, not too long ago. He WAS pro-gay, not too long ago. Also, during Romney's SINGLE term as governor, Massachusetts lagged in the U.S. average in job creation, economic growth and wage increases. Massachusetts was an "under-performer" during Romney's tenure. Hmmm....then you wonder why Romney wasn't elected for a second term? And, you still think he has good economic sense??? And as far as appeal..yes, he won some states..out West in Mormon-rich Utah. But, he failed to win any big or southern states. The flip-side of Mr. Romney's 90% of the vote in heavily-populated Morman Utah is that he struggles in the Bible belt! NO! TO ROMNEY and YES! to Mike Huckabee! Mike was re-elected to his office as governor because he had the support of the people of Arkansas who believed in what he could, and DID do! He has been given highest honors as a governor and has been praised and endorsed by many prominent figures. He is consistent and a great communicator and has a tremendous support base among evangelicals, Catholics and also, the black community. Pick Romney and you'll LOSE the millions of us who still are in Mike's corner-BIG TIME! Pick Huckabee and you'll INHERIT our tenacity, work ethic and desire to continue to support our man-MIKE in the capacity of V.P.

Samuel, An M&M ticket means landslide for the Democrats. No question. Although, Personally I'd rather Romney get on the ticket rather than Huckabee. That way, when the tsunami called Obama hits, Both McCain and Romney will have their careers destroyed, and Mike Huckabee emerges unscathed.

In reality, McCain is not considering at all Romney. If you look at McCain's responses to Mitt Romney, He isn't interested in talking to McCain at all, and for good reason. It could cost him the social conservative vote. Whereas if He got Huckabee, it could cost him the establishment's funding, something he needs badly. He will probably pick a southern conservative that is with the establishment.

By the way, Samuel, McCain's already locked the foreign policy conservatives. McCain must make a choice. Huckabee and social conservatives or Mitt Romney and fiscal conservatives. It cannot be one or the other. It all comes down to which voting block is the biggest, obviously the social conservative.

Alas, McCain will most definitely choose someone else.

What does it profiteth a man to gain Huckabee and lose the entire mountain west? Huckabee is divisive and has demeaned those of other religions, and not just during the campaign. He is an anti-Mormon from way back and anti-Catholic as well. He appeals to evangelicals to vote for him because he is the true Christian implying the others were not. He said it would have a chilling effect if his own did not support him. He has divided the electorate along religious lines rather than leave certain things sacred. He has no respect for the religious freedom of those not of his faith. He is no full-spectrum conservative and far from presidential. If McCain picks Huckabee for VP I could not vote for either one.

Both sides are making good points. McCain has the foreign policy conservatives locked up -- though if he keeps causing trouble on Guantanamo and waterboarding this could be a problem. And so he's got to lock up social conservatives and economic conservatives, and here Huck helps with one group and Romney helps with the other. Let me throw one other thing into the conversation. McCain's biggest problem may be with immigration conservatives, and here I think this tips things toward Romney. Romney was consistently good on this issue during the campaign. Huck, not so good at first, and then he got religion and turned on a dime and stopped calling border security folks nativists and starting talking like the toughest sheriff you've ever seen; I'd say he's at least suspect here. So, if McCain really wants to get on the good side of border hawks, he should choose Romney. And that, I'm telling you, is exactly why McCain will never choose Romney, because in his heart if there's one thing McCain is intent on doing: it's giving out amnesty, and Romney will have nothing to do with this.

First let's do a bit of a comparison between Massachusetts and Arkansas

Arkansas -- geographically larger and completely landlocked
Massachusetts -- has a larger, much better educated and more economically diverse population and an economy that leads or is in the top handful of states in many important categories; has a more diverse landscape from mountains to sea coast and rural to major city

k-12 Education: Massachusetts -- students regularly score in the top 5 states in all standardized tests.
Arkansas -- Uh 49th?
How about SAT's: Mass -- top handful, Arkansas -- bottom handful

Universities: Arkansas -- U Arkansas used to have a fairly good football team
Massachusetts -- UMass -- recent Nobel in Bio/Medicine, then there are Harvard (Money and Brains with a few Nobels thrown in), Boston, University (2 Nobels), Northeastern, and MIT (half a dozen recent Nobels in Physics, Chemistry, Bio/Med, Economics)

Finance: Arkansas -- has several of the wealthiest Americans who inherited Walton�s B$, HQ of Tyson Chicken and HQ of Walmart
Massachusetts -- Fidelity, Eaton Vance, State Street Corporation, State Street Global Advisors, John Hancock (ManuLife), Liberty Mutual, leading venture capital firms including Mitt�s own Bain Capital, Highland Capital;

Medicine: Massachusetts -- Harvard teaching hospitals including Mass General, Brigham & Women�s, Beth Israel Deaconess, Shriners Burns, Children�s, Josalin Diabetes, Mass Eye and Ear, Lahey Clinic, Dana-Farber Cancer, then UMass Medical, Boston University Medical, Tufts Medical School
Arkansas -- ?

Biotech / Med Devices: Mass. -- Global Research HQ for Novartis {based in Basel Switzerland}, Genzyme, Biogen-Idec, Millennium, Broad Institute, Whitehead Institute, Boston Scientific, Abiomed (fully implantable artificial heart), Covidien,
Arkansas - ?

Technology: Mass -- MIT Lincoln Lab, Mitre, BBN Technologies, Draper Lab, IBM, Google, Microsoft, Intel, Analog Devices, EMC, Raytheon, General Dynamics, Color Kinetics, Oracle, Nokia, Schlumberger, Motorola, Siemens, Philips, Osram Sylvania, General Electric, Army Soldier Systems Center, Army Institute of Soldier Nanotechnologies, iRobot, Benthos, Embers, Analogic, L-3 Corporation, American Science and Engineering, Skyworkx, Tiax (former Arthur D. Little) -- just to name some
Arkansas -- Tyson Chicken?

Transportation -- Mass. Logan International Airport, MBTA, Conley Container Terminal, Cruiseport Boston, Interstate �class highways (I-90, I-93, I-95, I-91, I-495, I-195, I-290, I-190, Rt-128, Rt-2, Rt-3, Rt-24)
Arkansas a couple of stops on the Greyhound bus from Dallas to Memphis, I-40

Metropolis: Mass -- Boston, Arkansas ? (Well ok Little Rock)

I'm not trying to put Arkansas down -- but to compare the being Governor of Arkansas to Governor of Massachusetts is like comparing Arkansas to Massachusetts -- Google each and just compare what you find

As Ross Perot said about Bill Clinton in 1992 (but we didn't listen) -- just because you can run a mom and pop corner grocery doesn't mean you can run Walmart!

Nuff said

Westy

I cannot stand Huckabee as a presidential candidate or a VP candidate. Should Romney not be listed as the running mate to John McCain, I will be writing him in. Call it a waisted vote, call it whatever you want. I for one have a low outlook on the economy as it is. I am likely going to start laying people off should Romney not get chosen. I also expect other business owners to do the same.

When Romney dropped out he had just over 290 delegates. Huckabee never got close. If you look at Huckabee and Romney while they were head to head, Huckabee was much, much weaker. Huckabee lost 16 states with 20% of the vote or less. 5 of those losses Huckabee was in the single digits! Romney only had 3 losses where he was below 20%. He never finished in any state in the single digits. Even in the few states that Huckabee won, he won them narrowly (except for his home state.) Whereas Romney won in the double digits in several states. Romney did well throughout the country. Romney won in the East, Midwest the West and almost won florida. Even where he lost, he finished very strong. Huckabee did well in Iowa and and a few southern states. He got pasted everywhere else.
Looking forward, Romney still has the best organization in the most states and raised more money than all the Republicans. These are probably the two most important reasons McCain should choose him. I know Huckabee has some emotionally attached fans out there, but his record is embarassing on just about every issue except life. I think it is time to acknowledge that he was not God's candidate, and hold him accountable for claiming to be.

Anyone who belives Huckabee is a realistic VP candidate either does not understand the Republican Party, is unfamiliar with Huckabee's positions or does not understand how the non-evangelical voters view Huckabee. Mainline conservatives (i.e not one-issue evangelical conservatives or moderates) are slowly coming to grips with McCain as their nominee but any energy or goodwill McCain has generated with mainline conservatives would quickly be lost if he added Huckabee to the ticket. Given Huckabee's fiscal record and populist rhetoric, conservatives simply do not see Huckabee as one of them. McCain needs to shore up his right to much to risk adding Huckabee.

Additionally, due to McCain's age, McCain's VP choice will be judged on his ability to step in as President. Most swing voters and independents I know are VERY uncomfortable Huckabee holding national office, uncomfortable enough to change their votes to Clinton/Obama if Huckabee were on the ticket. Due to the way Huckabee ran his campaign, his appeal starts and ends with hard core evangelicals and pretty much left the rest of the electorate alienated or uncomfortable.

Sen. McCain should select someone who has the highest ethical standards/honesty, a conservative, someone with a common touch and has accomplishments in reforming government.
The ideal choice is Sarah Palin.

As I mentioned before, McCain will not choose Huckabee or Romney, as choosing Huckabee might cost him the establishments funding and choosing Romney will cost him the social conservative vote.
Also, as I mentioned before, McCain will most likely pick someone from the south and who is in league with the establishment, yet at the same time doesn't jeopardize the independent vote. Romney, because he has allied himself with the establishment and talk radio, will more than likely cost McCain the independent vote. That amongst many other reasons is why McCain will not choose Mitt Romney.

By the way, the majority of people who don't like Huckabee is actually because of hearsay rather than researching yourself. Listen to some of his speeches first before you make a judjement.

By the way, Mike Huckabee has 267 delegates to Mitt Romney's 255 delegates, CNN counts. So your argument is null and void.

HMH, Mike Huckabee was in far longer than Mitt Romney, despite being outspent 20-1. Mitt Romney failed to come close to winning the southern states, the base of the Republican Party. He only won states were he was lightly contested, with the exception of Mass. and Michigan, for obvious reasons, and states with a high Mormon population.

The social conservative base is a lot larger than what you might think. I estimate that they are about as huge as fiscal conservatives, border conservatives, and defense conservatives put together. So like I said, McCain must keep that in mind when he picks his Vice-President.

I am betting it will be none of these two.

If we take a step back and a deep breath, we can see what is actually going to make the biggest difference in the lives of our children and grandchildren: the economy. If the economy goes under, it takes their jobs, their lifestyles. If we care about our families futures, the only logical thing to do is hope (and pray) that McCain picks Romney. The economy is the main reason Mitt got into this in the first place. He sees what is looming on the horizon and he has spent his life saving businesses from themselves. The government is HUGE business, and Mr. Romney has offered to sacrifice to save it (and with all the criticism you get, it is a sacrifice). If there are evangelicals who can not get behind supporting a Mitt, McCain ticket, then they are putting the future of their own children in danger. They need to shake off the brainwashing they are getting from their misinformed pastors and do their own research. It is not called the Church of Jesus Christ for nothing.

MCCAIN WILL NOT CHOOSE MIKE UP-CHUCK-ABEE! McCain might choose Mitt Romney, but there is a long list of others who could get the VP nod as well. My favorite would be Bobby Jindal, the newly elected governor of Louisiana.

Why is Up-Chuck-abee not an acceptable choice? Well, for one, Mormon voters in Utah, Arizona, Nevada, Idaho, Colorado, Wyoming, Montana & many other western or mountain west states are a large percentage of the vote that Republicans in those states rely on. MORMON VOTERS DO NOT HAVE A PROBLEM with John McCain. John McCain has always enjoyed a lot of Mormon support in his home state of Arizona. Mormons are not blaming McCain because his 97 year-old mother said some silly things about Mormons.

But Mormons DO HAVE a problem with Mike Up-Chuck-abee. Up-Chuck-abee is the first candidate in modern history to actually attack Mormon voters PERSONALLY when he repeatedly slandered the Mormon faith as part of his campaign tactics. Mormon voters WILL NOT forget this. In a political contest, it is ok to attack your opponents. It is NEVER OK to attack voters that you will eventually depend on. That is exactly what Mike Up-Chuck-abee did, and that is exactly the NUMBER ONE reason that Up-Chuck-abee would be unacceptable in any position of a McCain Administration.

Regardless of all of Mike Up-Chuck-abee's other problems: his ethical lapses as Governor of Arkansas; his horrible history on illegal immigration (McCain agrees with him here); his begging for tax increases; his childish way of attacking the messenger when called out by the media; his thin skin and mal temperament; and his complete lack of support outside of Evangelical Christian circles, Up-Chuck-abee would actually make McCain lose Mormon votes that would naturally be McCain's to begin with.

There is nothing added to the ticket with Up-Chuck-abee. Another way of putting it would be that Evangelicals will vote for McCain anyway. But imagine if some anti-Evangelical Christian candidate was chosen by McCain as his running mate: Do you think that Evangelicals would still vote for McCain anyway? In regard to Mike Up-Chuck-abee, many non-Evangelical voters are scared of religious fanatics, and General Election voters will be reminded constantly that the only reason that Up-Chuck-abee thinks he is qualified to hold office is because he claims to be the "CHRISTIAN LEADER." McCain does not need Up-Chuck-abee's baggage. I could vote for McCain under almost any other circumstances other than him picking the anti-Mormon bigot religious extremist idiot, a.k.a. Mike Huckabee, as his running mate.

Anima said: "By the way, the majority of people who don't like Huckabee is actually because of hearsay rather than researching yourself. Listen to some of his speeches first before you make a judjement."

Anima how about I do you one better and we look at Huckabee's record and experience? He has uniformly been panned by fiscal groups for his record on taxes and spending. Add to the fact that Huckabee was woefully ignorant on national security concerns and you have two valid reasons to not vote vote for Huckabee

Perhaps you would like to think that people who opposed Huckabee based it on hearsay but in actuality Huckabee had almost no appeal beyond evangelical conservatives due to his record, lack of experience and overt politicization of religion.

Also, just to make the point you need to be more careful with your statements and facts the CNN delegate count that has Huckabee at 276 and Romney at 255 does not include Romney's Michhigan delegates which he graciously released to McCain. Add those in and its a dead heat despite the fact Romney dropped out weeks before Huckabee.

Go review the data, Huckabee was only competitive in the South and a couple other states with a disproportiante amount of evangelicals (Kansas, Iowa). In the west, most of the midwest and the Northeast Huckabee barely registered.

Does it really matter who is the Vice President? Can this country take four more years of Republican rule?

In response to Gary...I'd rather spend the rest of eternity under Republican rule than 10 minutes under the sule of idiotic, people handicapping, coddling, socialistic, welfare giving, left wing democrats.

STS, I have looked at his record, free from the bias of the Club for Growth, a 527 paid for by Romney I might add, as well as from the bias of many of the conservative pundits. Mike Huckabee cut taxes 94 times in Arkansas, a state that has never seen a tax cut in 100-140 years. He reduced the size of the state government by 11%. He improved Arkansas roads from being the worst to being one of the best, with a tax on gasoline that the Arkansas residents VOTED for overwelmingly by 80%. He improved schools from being 48th to being the 8th best. He acquired 48% of the black vote, something unheard of in the Republican party. I wonder what record you have been seeing.

The delegates were automatically released from Romney by the Michigan State GOP. Ironically, this was the only state were he had a major contest with Huckabee and McCain, othe then Mass.
The states in the west are not the base of the Republican party, the south is. And he who controls the south controls the Republican party, whether people like to acknowledge that or not.

You guys claim it was anti-mormon bias, yet Mike Huckabee was attacked on being an evangelical much, much, more than Romney was, if at all. Who was being asked all the God questions ? Who was being derided for being an evangelical ?

Mitt Romney was a Bishop in the Mormon faith, yet
he was never questioned nor derided for that. But all of the sudden, a babtist preacher decides to run for government, and people scream bloody murder.

Also, Mike Huckabee is an ordained minister. If he didn't put his faith front and center of his campaign, I would start to wonder if he was even a former pastor.

I can tell you this though, you need to start drinking the caustic Kool-aid and do some research on your own rather than letting yourself be dragged along like sheep.

Mark Sanford for VP

McCain must get a popular leader from the south. If the GOP loses one southern state, they are finished. Although this applies to the midwest as well, as Ohio is in shambles for the GOP. Romney would help in Michigan, but not in the south. As for the NE, no one can make them vote GOP today.

Romney would turn our government around in terms of Economic progress and McCain could stay focused on on winning the Middle East over to democracy.

Romney is tenacious. America took a major step backward not nominating him for the Presidency. The greatest President of All Time will be Romney in the future. He will cut taxes, create massive jobs, lead towards the center, create a massive energy and liquid fuels industry, create massive confidence in the economy, etc.

McCain cannot sustain the brevity of America's problems without someone like Mitt Romney. And that's just the point: There is nobody else as good as Romney on these issues.

I really do not think that McCain will choose Romney or Huckabee. The establishment hates Huckabee as do the lobbyists and special interest groups who give millions to candidates and the party to get what they want. Social conservatives do not like Romney because of his waffling positions, arrogance, and association with big corporate money. McCain stands a slim chance of defeating the Democrats as it is, and simply cannot afford to tick off big money or social conservatives. In my mind, Huckabee would have made a great president for the common man, but unfortunately the pundits, the Republican establishment, and corporate money have shut him down (at least this year).

Anima, if you think the club for growth is a 527 paid for by Romney, you are as ill-informed as all the rest of your comments make you appear. But this is not surprising fare from a guy who buys into Huckleberry. Anima, Mike talks fast and I'm sure that is impressive to you, but most of which comes out of his mouth is not accurate and many times intended to decieve. For example, when he suggests that voters approved his tax hikes by over 80% he is blatantly misrepresenting the facts in an attempt to deceive you. The tax hike supposedly approved by 80% of voters was adopted before they voted and voters knew that the tax would stay in place regardless of how they voted. they approved the issuance of bonds so they could at least get better roads faster. this is classic huckleberry fast talk and he does it all the time. Anima, you really need to reconsider who you are going to mindlessly push on blogs. By the way, Mitt did very well in several southern states, and in many he split evangelicals evenly with mccain and huckleberry. check your facts (by the way, club for growth has been around a lot longer than the Romney campaign.)

I am deciding who to vote for in November. But I know if Romney is VP, I will not vote for McCain.

If McCain picks Mitt "I can flip flop on any issue" Romney, I and many like me, will ABANDON McCain!

http://OsiSpeaks.com

NEVER Romney never Romney never Romney! True Republicans will never vote for the plastic flip-flopper.
Millions and millions of voters will support Huckabee, AND he has a highly energized force of volunteers just waiting to help win this election if he's on the ticket.
Go Mike!

Hey Bethidee, the gig is up. Huckabee has flip flopped far more that Mitt if you look at things objectively, and he did it right during the campaign on both immigration and cuba. McCain has also. News flash, politicians change their positions on issues, even the ones you like. The people that crucified Mitt on flip flopping are the ones that didn't want to say "I hate Mormons and i will never vote for one." The flip flopping charge is the only negative they can come up with on Mitt because he is an increadibly honorable and good man who has been more successful than just about any other American in the last 25 years. So you might as well just go ahead and say I'm a biggot and I hate Mormons cause the flip flopping thing just isn't cutting it anymore. by the way if you think that adding issues to the flip flopping list will make it more legitimate, the only issue he has changed his position on is the role of governmnet in Abortion. He has always believed abortion is a grevous sin, he just hasn't always been convinced as to what the role of government should be. he is pro-life, that is consistent with the personal beliefs he has held his whole life. All the other flip flopping charges (guns, gays, etc.)were dispelled on Meet the Press.

Romney has lied so much he is in hock to the "prince of lies." Through Bain Capital, he has stolen so much he is in hock to the "prince of thieves" Romney has only one deserved fate - a grand jury investigation by federal prosecutor patrick j fitzgerald, and striped pyjamas in san quentin. fawgetabawdit!

Amusing, the principal contributers to Club for Growth during this election season was, without a doubt by Romney supporters. Romney is suppose to have no contact with them because of McCain-feingold.

You still never have researched on Mike Huckabee, only heard about him from hearsay. Everything that you said was nothing more than opinion on your behalf, while I offered hard evidence in favor of Mike Huckabee.

Mitt Romney didn't lose because of so-called Mormon bias, Mitt Romney lost because he was deceitful and dishonest. He lied about MLK, he lied about hunting, and he lied on social conservative issues. Nobody can trust a liar.

This year has been the attack of the biases. If you disagree with Obama, your a racist. If you disagree with Hillary, your a sexist. If you disagree with Mitt Romney, your and anti-Mormon bigot. If you happen to agree with Mike Huckabee, your a bigot, rightwing, fascist, evangelical extremist.

I will ask again, who was it that got ridiculed for being an evangelical ? Who was discounted and dispised because he was a clergyman, while another certain governor from Mass. was a clergyman himself, yet it was taboo to talk on the subject ? Who was derided because he was a pastor at church ?

This election season has taught me this. There is plenty of anti-evangelical bias out there on both sides of the fence, Democrat and Republican, news media and talk radio. It is absolutely sickening for people to claim bias and bigotry on evangelicals, without looking at themselves for once.

A wise saying says this, pluck the board out of your own eye, before attempting to remove the splinter from another.

Can anybody say Hutchinson? A popular female Texan with a good head on her shoulders. She helps carry the South, Southwest, females, Hispanics, etc. The perfect anti-Hillary candidate as well. I suspect, though, that McCain will pick Terry Sanford, a comfortable choice for him that seals the South, so he can focus on taking away NY and NJ from the Dems.