John McCain should receive the Republican nomination instead of Mitt Romney.

1. This site gives a good summary of Romney's foreign policy: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com... As you can see, Romney's foreign policy is pretty solid. He greatly sees the importance of enhancing our national defensive capabilities, working with other nations to solve important issues such as terrorism and the situation in Darfur, and he speaks extensively on energy independence, seeing the dangers in investing in foreign energy. Here's a good defense of his lack of actual foreign policy experience by Romney himself on an episode of Hannity and Colmes: "Well, if we want somebody who has a lot of experience in foreign policy, we can simply go to the State Department and pluck out one of the tens of thousands of people who work there. They, of course, have been doing foreign policy all their careers. But that's not how we choose a president. A president is not a foreign policy expert. A president is a leader who understands how to make difficult decisions and does so in a way that brings together the best voices, that considers the upsides and downsides and predicts the credibility and the strength that America has always projected in circumstances like this. One of our great foreign policy presidents was Ronald Reagan, who even though he had not spent years in the Senate, understood a vision of what we had to do to overcome the greatest threat of the last half of the last century, and was able to bring together the various experts and the various viewpoints and sort them through and take action that led America to be successful in that great -- that great challenge that we faced then. So the kind of experience you want is someone who knows how to make difficult decisions, to bring together the right people that consider the various options that you have, and then to act with strength and resolve." 2.Sometimes, promoting bipartisanship is good, but it also can be bad. Promoting bipartisanship should be to express your ideas while also very firmly holding down to your convictions. John McCain typically sides too much with the democrats on issues. Why are we voting republican? We are because we think the republicans generally have the right idea, much more so than democrats. Since we are for that reason, it makes no sense to vote for someone whom we do not think will represent his ideas and keep onto them firmly. If he has to forsake some for some ideas that do not make sense, it solves very little. For example, at the start of the Bush tax cuts, McCain was against them saying, "I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who need tax relief." He changed his mind after finding out that the tax cuts have increased tax revenue, helped to cut the deficit in half, lighten the recession's impact, and have also actually made the richer citizens pay MORE of the taxes than before. Simple conservative fiscal policy such as this cannot be compromised toward socialist fiscal policy. Additionally, the McCain-Reingold bill, although good in nature, restricts free speech 60 days before an election. That's purely unconstitutional and for a presidential candidate to want to "uphold the constitution," that's not keeping to your convictions. And actually, you are wrong. You said, "Romney has never once promoted bipartisanship." He has, and very successfully in the manner that bipartisanship should be promoted. He worked with democrats and experts to come up with his version of universal healthcare, which spurs competition between insurance companies and keeps prices down. It is the only current working version. The reason he did this successfully is because he kept to free-market principles (highly valued by conservatives) to enact a piece of legislation that was bipartisan. 3. Romney's alleged flip-flopping are not, by any means on "key issues." However, John McCain has expressed strong criticism on the Iraq war and has since changed that, pushing for a realization that he is the strongest supporter of "defeating terrorism." Yes, it is true that in 1994, he had liberal positions such as being pro-choice and pro-equal rights. He has since changed those positions, which is valid to do so, considering it is nearly 14 years since then. The allegations in regards to his gubernatorial race are flawed since for pro-choice, he said that he would not impede on the law as it stands, but he never said he would champion for pro-life. He did demonstrate that he did not impede on the law, but he also demonstrated that he would not allow an abuse of the law, which shows from his numerous vetoes of pro-choice bills during his governorship. On gay rights: Mitt Romney did support gay rights back in 1994; there's no question about that. In 2002, when he ran for governor, he said that he would not champion a fight for or against gay marriage. He is against discrimination, which includes gays, but he is against civil unions. Additionally, in regards to stem cell research, the McCain campaign made a false attack since his position in 2005 is consistent with his current position. Stem cell research is a complicated topic with many facets. He supports research using existing methods, including extra embryos in in virtro fertilization which would normally be discarded without use. He does not support using taxpayer money to commit what he believes to be unethical, which is to expand embryonic stem cell research. I take a quote from Kevin Madden, a spokesperson for the Romney campaign: "The McCain campaign should actually watch these clips before they just send them to reporters. This one makes clear Governor Romney's views on the ethical guidelines needed for stem cell research. Governor Romney does not support taxpayer funding for embryonic stem cell research. Governor Romney supports ethical biomedical research that partners science with research in a way that protects the sanctity of life and still helps advance medical breakthroughs. The McCain campaign's continued assault on these views is the desperate act of a faltering campaign resorting to negative tactics. It's kinda sad that it's gotten to this point for the senator's campaign." Before I say anything else, I have to ask that you do not copy and paste from a site, using their words, especially without giving them credit. That's plagiarizing. The rest of your post were direct words from the McCain campaign site. As such, I will not respond to it specifically. Here are some good points with Mitt Romney: 1) Mitt Romney comes from an outstanding education. He graduated from Brigham Young University with a BA as valedictorian of his class. After that, he earned a JD and an MBA from Harvard University, graduating cum laude from law school and in the top 5% in business school. John McCain's education? He graduated from high school and attended the National War College, hardly compared to that of Romney. With great education comes great decision-making, which Romney has already demonstrated many times in the past. 2) Romney's executive experience is astounding to say the least. He practically saved the 2002 winter olympics by breaking the corruption and saving the fiscal crisis. They were about to scale back the games since it was becoming so unsuccessful. After Romney became CEO, the SLOC (Salt Lake Origanization Committee) eventually had a $100 million profit and the games were successful. Additionally, Romney has been CEO of Bain & Company, also creating a turnaround making a near financial collapse turn into profitability without layoffs or partner defections. He has also been governor, which shows political executive experience. John McCain's cannot compare to this. Romney understands law, the economy, foreign affairs, and has demonstrated the necessary abilities for presidency