Doesn't hold for Giuliani, from what I've seen. I haven't watched the nonsensical debates, but when I've heard Giuliani interviewed, he's not only said nice things about Romney, it's seemed like he meant it. I could definitely see the two of them on a ticket together...maybe not Giuliani/Romney, but definitely Romney/Giuliani - Rudy's been a great team player since he left the mayor's office, doing fundraising and campaigning for Republicans across the country.

And sure, I've seen the bullshit memo from the Giuliani campaign that trashes Romney's economic performance as governor, but that seems to me like par for the course - I see politics behind it, but not venom...

...but maybe I'm just naive...

Now there's a ticket I could get behind!

I've never quite been able to see Rudy as presidential timber. Too many oddities and eccentricities. We don't want to be worrying all the time that the prez will go loose-cannon on us.

But he'd be great for veep, and I bet Mitt would be big enough to let him do some real work...

Yes, it's kind of odd. I am probably going to switch to Romney from Thompson. I don't like Romney, but at this point I am willing to settle for a candidate I don't actively despise.

So, WHY don't you like him?

Two quickies:

1) His support for the universal health care plan in MA.

2) His economic pandering in Michigan wrt the auto industry.

3) That most of his conservative positions are very recently acquired and presumably as easily un-acquired (e.g., the Souter effect).

Other annoying old guy, 1 and 2 I'll give you, but I rather suspect that his current conservative positions are long-standing and real, while his other positions were convenience positions deemed essential to being elected in Massachusetts. Doesn't make him honest, but it does ease my fears that he might relapse to his "real" positions in a moment of stress.

Just as an aside, I actively despise all politicians, but the Clintons I truly hate. Why? Not because they lie, not well, but with enthusiasm. Not because they take bribes. Mainly because when they take bribes openly, and when they lie transparently and egregiously, they will always, always get a free pass from the MSM. That kind of get-out-of-jail-free card scares the bejeebers out of me.

Steven--The Clintons. Hillbilly connivers and crooks. Somehow I've never hated them, but that does not make me any less intensely opposed to them. (My dear wife not only loathes them, she loathes Chelsea! It reminds me of the Nixon years, when people even hated Tricia and Julie.)

AOG, I'm also with you on 1 and 2.

My number 3 is that there are areas, such as immigration, where we really need some creative leadership. Romney's the guy with the least excuse for not being that leader--his main selling point is his management skills and problem-solving ability. So where is his brain trust of conservative Hispanic Mormons?

And 4, another aspect of managerial leadership. Bush picked a few areas to concentrate on, and stuck with them. Some of them starting when he was Gov. of Texas. He labored mightily in Texas to improve education, especially reading skills. And he clearly promised the same if he was elected President. And on his very first day in the White House he was meeting with his education advisors.

So where are the comparable Romney issues?

I have no idea. Frankly, I am settling for candidates who don't have issues that I will spend the next four years fighting all out against.