James,

You can make up names and badmouth people all you want.  But the choices for president in November are Barak Obama or John McCain.  If you think we would have a "liberal tyranny" if we elect McCain (and Romney?), you haven't yet thought about what a radical tyranny we would have during SIXTEEN years of Obamas (8 for Barack and 8 more for Michelle).  This guy is not even a Liberal Democrat. He's a radical.  And you and every other protest vote is putting him in the oval office.  I don't know if Baldwin is good or not, but right now it is Obama or McCain.  A vote for Bladwin is definitely a vote for Obama.

Luke seems to be missing part of the equation, however.  Romney lost in the south, not because he is unacceptable to southerners.  He lost in the south because Huckabee seemed more appealing.  If Huckabee wasn't on the ballot, we'd be choosing between Obama and Romney.

So why didn't Romney win?  All of those people who voted for Huckabee didn't vote for Romney.  You may question how much of a conservative Romney is.  But he is much more conservative than McCain, and he's a clear shot better than Obama.  By voting for the guy you liked, (Huckabee, or, if you'd prefer, Baldwin) you elected the more liberal guy (McCain, or Obama) instead of the more conservative guy (Romney or McCain).  People who voted for Huckabee and got McCain should have trouble looking in the mirror.  If you vote for someone else and we end up getting Obama instead of McCain, you should have trouble looking in the mirror.  Don't make the same mistake a second time.  This one counts.

As for the Massachussets Supreme court, remember that Romney's job was to execute the laws.  He can't pick and choose which he wanted to enforce and which he wouldn't.  I've read stories of legal maneuvering which may or may not have worked.  And even if it worked, they may have had such a backlash that it might have advanced the cause of gay marriage instead of having the backlash against it that we got here.  In any case, the same thing is happening in California, and I don't see any legal challenges in the works.

As for the life issue, I believe that you believe in life.  There are people who don't.  Isn't it possible, don't you consider it probable, that someone with good values who studies the issue might change their mind and come to agree with you?  Isn't the purpose of the pro-life movement, or any movement for that matter, to change the minds of people who look at the issue closely.  So here you have a "convert" to your side.  Someone who converted while he was governor, not while he was running for president.  And you assume bad motives for the conversion.  Do you have such little faith in your side that anyone who agrees with you must have come to your side for reasons other than, well, reason?

So the two big issues this election are security and the economy.  We need someone in office who understands the economy.  Well, we can't get Romney (except, perhaps) for VP), but certainly McCain is better on Security than "we'll be out in eighteen months" Obama.

In discussing the state of the SCUS and the need to win this election (and not stay home because, "that'll teach 'em"), listeners to the Hugh Hewitt show have heard him trot out the justices and list them in inverse order by age.  Funny, if McCain was a Supreme Court Justice, he would be among those Hugh expects to retire during the next presidential term.

Romney for Vice President.

Fred Barnes has made the suggestion that others have.  McCain should pick Romney for VP.

He solves so many problems for McCain's presidency, that it just doesn't make sense for him not to select him.  Assuming people voted for McCain for his appeal to the independents, that does not make McCain necessarily more electable.  What profit a man to gain the independents if he loses the base.  They chose McCain for his military experience and his steadfast position on the war.  But McCain's expertise in economics is sketchy at best.

Romney could help secure the base as McCain goes for the independents.  Romney could shore up the administration's economic credentials.

And let's not even get to what the Vice Presidential debate would be like with razor-sharp Romney on a one-on-one with some Democrat.

The argument goes that McCain and Romney just have too much enmity to pair up on a ticket.  McCain may be stubborn as an old mule, but you can befriend a stubborn mule with a little sugar.  Surely McCain can see that he needs Romney.  As for the enmity, as soon as Romney conceded he came out and endorsed McCain.  Not even McCain's old friend Fred Thompson did that.  Romney did it not to secure a place in the new administration, but out of loyalty to the Republican party.  McCain should show his loyalty to the party by burying the hatchet and going after Romney.

The Vice President serves at the pleasure of the President.  If Romney pledged to clean up Washington, let him.  Let him go through every department and every budget and let him clean the place up.  Surely this would accomplish much more than the earmark and pork that McCain wants to get rid of.  Whatever he is not able to clean up, he will be better able to deal with later.  The credit would go to McCain.  The experience would go to Romney.

We hope and work for McCain's victory in November.  But if his age works against him this year, imagine four years from now.  Give McCain his four years.  But perhaps a 76-year old McCain would step aside and give his Vice President a chance.  With four year's experience as Vice President, with the greater name recognition and a more solid record for his positions, Romney would have a better chance next cycle than this one.

It is good for McCain.  It shores up his administration's credentials and makes his election more certain by securing the base as he goes after independents.  It is good for Romney, gaining experience and name recognition as he prepares for his chance to serve.

I don't expect McCain to announce anything soon.  But when his selection is made, it should be Romney