Adding Newt's name, right under Perry's, to the list of people we won't vote for.
I hope Romney, Paul and Huntsman are on that list too.
If so, then my question to you is this: What if, when your state has its primary, only Newt and Romney have enough delegates to have a chance at the nomination? Do you just stay home or cast a meaningless vote for a candidate who won't be the nominee?
I have no problem with people changing their rankings of candidates but I have a BIG problem with conservatives ruling out multiple people. I will NOT vote for Ron Paul in a primary. He's at the very bottom of my list. I would vote for Huntsman, ONLY IF when my state votes he and Paul were the two leading candidates, and that's extremely unlikely to happen.
It seems to me that if you stay home or vote for any candidate other than one who still has a chance to win the nomination you are shirking an important responsibility to have a say in who our nominee is. For example, to illustrate, let's say when my state votes, only Romney and Cain are still in contention for the nomination. I prefer Cain by miles over Romney. But I wouldn't be mad at any Republican who voted for Romney... they're entitled to prefer him. I WOULD be mad at someone who voted for Gingrich in that situation. They're entitled to prefer him, but I don't believe they have a right to put their own selfish preference over the responsibility to help the party pick the best nominee. In that situation, vote Cain or Romney. If you flip Cain and Gingrich in that situation, then I'd be mad at anyone who voted for Cain.
Let me clarify that I have no problem at all with anyone supporting a candidate who is currently low in the polls. But when it is your state's turn to choose delegates THEN it is time to pick between the leading candidates who could actually win. Last time around, McCain beat out Romney and Huckabee, both who would have been MUCH stronger candidates, because the people who couldn't stand McCain split their votes. Let's not see a repeat of that.
Currently my preferences in order are: Gingrich, way ahead of Bachmann, Santorum, and Cain, all so close together that I could change my preferences based on future debates, way ahead of Romney and Perry, don't like either very much, currently would go for Romney, (but if Perry improves he could pass Romney but never catch the first four) both of whom are way better than Huntsman, Paul, and oh yeah I forgot Gary Johnson, pretty much as bad as Paul.