Video Link of the short movie I made of our Colorado Caucus.

At our straw poll I made a speech for Romney just before we voted, I said that I believed the most important reason to vote him into office was because he would continue the Bush policy regarding the war, and the second reason is because he would make sure to find the best judges in the country to sit on the Supreme Court.
Today Hugh Hewitt wrote an entry that basically said the same thing.
Seven Reasons to support the GOP
Hugh Hewitt:

“There are seven reasons for anyone to support the eventual nominee no matter who it is: The war and six Supreme Court justices over the age of 68.

Folks who want to take their ball and go home have to realize that even three SCOTUS appointments could revolutionize the way elections are handled in this country in a stroke, mandating the submission of redistricting lines to court scrutiny for “fairness.”

“It is undeniable that political sophisticates understand such fairness and how to go about destroying it,” Justice Souter announced in his diseent in Veith v. Jubilerer, the Pennsylvania redistricting case in which the Court declined by a vote of 5 to 4 to immerse itself in the details of the partisan redistricting of Pennsylvania.

If Democrats control the White House and gain even one of the five seats held by the center-right majority of current justices, this and many other crucial issues are up for legal grabs. When activist judges are more than willing to rewrite rules of long-standing, periods of exile should never be self-imposed “for the good of the party.” Exiles can go on a very long time indeed. Ask the Whigs.

They can go on indefinitely when enforced by courts.”

Jenny Hatch
Byron York: Why does Romney win the caucuses?

NRO Victor Davis Hansen on the NON Debate (Hillary and Barack Love Fest)

“If one studies carefully the Clintama answers on the war on terror, illegal immigration, and Iraq then the magnitude of Republican infighting seems surreal. The gulf between Hillary and McCain is Grand-Canyon like. This debate came down to Obama, talking in vague generalities about change, still without offering any specifics on anything that might be construed as hurtful and thus force him down from Olympus to the messy smelly world of mere mortals, and Hillary’s Bill-like ‘I did so much and suffered so much for all of you’ sanctimoniousness, coupled with ‘George Bush did it’ — and always that disturbing cackle. To the extent that there is any plan detectable in the generalities, it is get out of Iraq regardless of the conditions, expect that Syria and Iran will be in bad trouble if we leave (go figure), and keep illegal immigration mostly at the status quo of 700,000 a year coming across and another 11-16 million already here. When you have so many identity pressure groups who are single-minded in what they want-La Raza, the anti-war zealots, the Black Caucus, feminist pro-abortion zealots, unionized teachers and government workers-you have to say everything and thus nothing.”

If McCain gets the nomination, I would have to believe that the Republican sit-out would only last midsummer until they could not take Sen. Clinton no more, and thus like Lancelot at Camlan belatedly enter the fray.”

Article 6 Blog: The Reverend Cecil “Chip” Murray: Romney faces more prejudice than Obama

A6:

In the past year or so, several polls have been conducted suggesting that as many as 37% of Americans might not consider a member of the Mormon Church to be fit for the office of President. What is your view of the possibility of a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints being elected to the presidency?

Reverend Murray:

To me this seems an antiquated question. Would a Mormon be fit to serve as President? It was really antiquated when we asked the question about John Kennedy and whether a Catholic would be fit to serve as president. About Barack Obama and whether a Black would be fit to serve as president. About Hilary Clinton, whether a woman would be fit to serve as president.

If you want to, you can categorize anyone who is running. You could ask whether a White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant, male is fit to run for president when that’s all we’ve ever had. It’s time to change. There can be arguments if you go by labels, but if you see that this is a country in pursuit of liberty and justice for all, if you perceive that in a democracy as opposed to a fascist form of government we must have liberty and equity in the process. If you can see that we are in the 21st Century, where people will soon be crossing the country in 30 minutes, where we will be vacationing on Mars, if you can see the new world then you accommodate yourself to it and stop living in the past.

People’s labels, as long as they are not labeled as a criminal mentality, or defined as someone not FOR the people, then you can judge the merits of that platform and what they stand for, not where they are standing.”