Think about it. According to the legal analysts, the Supreme Court will probably strike down most or all of the Obamacare legislation in about a month. If so, who will be the only candidate in the presidential race that will have to defend the existence of the individual mandate?

To quote Pundette: "If I want a technocratic nanny statist in the Whitehouse, I'll stick with the current occupant. At least Obama limits his own damage with his incompetence."

From the AP:
...
But Mike McKenna, a GOP consultant from Richmond, Va., said Romney's struggles in the primaries and caucuses point to serious problems this fall. Romney won 41 percent of the primary vote in his native state of Michigan to Santorum's 38 percent, McKenna noted, calling it "hardly a dazzling performance."

The lady hasn't sung yet.

With Willard doing everything in his power to P.O. everyone with his actions to relentlessly and positively garner their support, things have taken an unusual turn lately.

In Iowa, not only has the final outcome flipped, but Paul supporters have taken over the state machine.

In Minnesota and Colorado, the delegate results have also flipped in Paul's favor.

Washington is the latest to go to Paul.

Is a 1964 redux in the future?

I'm still not very impressed with his foreign policy position, but given an "either/or" option, I'd take the candidate who has at the very least stayed consistent with his position, rather than flip-flopped more times than I can count.

If an "either/or" scenario doesn't agree with you, the US Constitution Party is tapping on former Cong. Virgil Goode for their candidate.